Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 4th, 2011

[Marc Mayrand]

It always depends on the time of the year. We just came out of a general election. I think close to 5,000 complaints or incidents were brought to the attention of the commissioner during the election. My understanding is that over the last few months, most of the efforts have been to respond to complainants on the various matters that arose during the election. I gather there are around 300 active files currently with the commissioner's office, all at different stages.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

And is there a timeframe on the commissioner responding to these active files?

[Marc Mayrand]

Not by statute. Again, that depends. Each file has its own characteristics and may have different requirements in terms of timing. Some may be resolved very quickly at the triage level, where you say this allegation, even if true, does not come close to an offence, so that file is pretty easy to close. Other cases, again, will go to a full-fledged penal investigation.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Are there any of those full-fledged criminal investigations under way at this time?

[Marc Mayrand]

There are a number.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

How many?

[Marc Mayrand]

I couldn't say by memory. As I said earlier, there are around 300 active files with the commissioners.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

One of the active files would be what happened in the riding of Guelph. There were a number of allegations there. Are you familiar with that particular file?

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

What stage—

[Marc Mayrand]

I received a fair number of complaints on this one.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

At what stage are the complaints regarding this?

[Marc Mayrand]

I think it's progressing well. I understand it's almost completed. I trust the commissioner will advise plaintiffs in due course--pretty soon.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. Mayes, for seven minutes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Mayrand, in your opening statement you said these rules have been put in place in recent years to avoid undue influence of single large contributors. As an elected person, everybody influences me to a certain extent. What is perceived as undue influence is what I would call reasonable influence and unreasonable influence.

I'd like to give you a bit of a scenario. Let's say a political party was holding a convention and all of a sudden a certain sector of the economy put in huge amounts of money to sell advertising and to really support the convention. Would you not think that was unreasonable influence on the people who are going to be making policy decisions on behalf of Canadians?

I think that's the issue here, and I think if you don't address that issue you're going to open the floodgates. If the NDP were allowed to get away with having this influence of unions on their policy-making ability in this place, then you're opening the floodgates for every sector to come forward and support political parties at these conventions. I think that is not the intent of the regulations that were put in place. They were put in place to get rid of that type of undue influence.

So what would you say is reasonable influence and unreasonable influence?

[Marc Mayrand]

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the test is whether it's a contribution under the act of no more than $1,100. Any amount above that would be prohibited; it would be illegal. I also should point out that the legislation does not put any prohibition on parties conducting business transactions—I mentioned a few examples earlier—so it leaves us to the general schema of the act, especially the provision that prevents circumventing the limit on contributions.

In the case at hand, again, for us it's not a matter of whether the transaction achieved undue influence; it's whether the transaction was above the limit of $1,100 per the individual who is contributing.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

For instance, we talk about fair market value—fair market value for advertising at the Super Bowl is different from fair market value for advertising on a regular TV spot. At a convention, I'd have to say it's a premium because you're influencing decision-makers who are going to be setting policy in the country.

Again, what I'm saying is if we let these doors open, where is the limit? What is fair market value? Who's going to determine that? I think Canadians are watching these conventions on TV and they're seeing the signs of these unions. There is some advantage to those who are advertising at these types of events.

If you open that door, you're going to end up with huge corporations and unions that are going to take advantage of this. Knowing they are going to be seen as influencing a particular party, that, to me, is undue influence. Would you agree?

[Marc Mayrand]

I don't disagree. Again, I have to refer to the legislation.

Parliament may want to consider prohibiting advertising and sponsorship altogether at party conventions. It hasn't been the case so far, so we're left to determine what the market is for the particular transaction. Is there a market, and what is it? If there is one, is the transaction normal in that market?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I know this puts you in a difficult position, but would you consider what was done at the NDP convention, with the unions putting forward advertising to support the convention and to pay for the cost of that convention, a reasonable influence or an unreasonable one?

[Marc Mayrand]

I will not comment on a specific case. I would just point out that I referred the matter to the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I think it's important that this particular question be answered, because if we let this go, we're going to find that we're just opening the floodgates. I think it's important for this committee to ensure that we answer the question and say, “You've gone too far here. This is the wrong thing to do. This was not the intent of the act. You knew that, and, knowing better, you accepted these contributions.”

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

You still have a minute and a half.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I'm done.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Mayrand, you've mentioned a couple of times that it's the role of the Commissioner of Canada Elections to determine if in fact these contributions exceeded the $1,100 limit. Can you clarify--because I think things can get convoluted a little bit, and that's not your intention--the donation limit for a registered trade union in Canada donating to a political party?

[Marc Mayrand]

Nil. Only individuals can make contributions.