Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 31st, 2007

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Madame Picard, you have three minutes left. Do you want to share it, or will we catch you up in the next round?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci.

Monsieur Godin, you have seven minutes, please.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome the minister.

I do not have very much to say. I don't even have a question to ask. However, I would like perhaps to make a few comments. I appreciate--

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

You are speaking very fast for the interpreter.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I could invite you to the Standing Committee on Official Languages!

I would just like to make a few comments. At the beginning of your remarks, you thanked Pat Martin for his work. It is most unfortunate that this was not done for Bill C-2. Mr. Martin's amendments to Bill C-2, which the government rejected, are now included in Bill C-54. Had they been accepted in Bill C-2, these provisions would now be law.

I have no questions at this time. I may have some on the next round. We support this bill. It will put everyone on an equal footing. Everyone who runs for office will be treated the same way. So people will not get elected simply because they have rich friends.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I will briefly speak to the amendments concerning loans that were presented when Bill C-2 went through, since Monsieur Godin raised the subject. I don't want to say the wording was sloppy, but the difficulty was that the wording I don't think would have achieved what I think was Mr. Martin's very good and very genuine intention. There was some awkward blurring of the line and terminology between the words “contribution” and “loan” and so on. I know the objective he was trying to achieve was what we're trying to do with Bill C-54. I believe it would not have been achieved with the amendments that were put forward at the time, and that's where it got tripped up at the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

That's not to in any way be critical of him. I think he was trying to achieve a positive outcome, and he should be given due credit for having kept it on the radar screen after Bill C-2 became law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much. That was a short questioning round.

Colleagues, we're going to go to round two. You have five minutes, this time, for questions.

We'll start with Madam Redman, please.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Minister, I welcome you, too, and I would ask you to get out your pen, because unlike my colleague, I have a whole bunch of questions. I think I'll just put them forward at the beginning and then give you a chance to answer them.

I'm sure it didn't escape your notice, but I am a woman in politics. I have to tell you that it's interesting that your opinion isn't that women in politics have trouble raising funds, because I'm here to tell you, after 10 years of public life, that women do have a problem raising funds. Sometimes it's the fact that they don't have the equity or credit history that a lot of their male counterparts have. So I'd be interested to know if this committee or you, when you wrote this, consulted with the real experts, such as bankers, to find out if that would be a problem.

I'd also like to ask about how this bill will impact the role of funds like the Judy LaMarsh Fund—set up in the Liberal Party years ago because of this impediment to women raising funds—which donate to female candidates, and something like Equal Voice, which also funds female candidates, again, because of the historic reality that women cannot raise funds.

You started by talking about some of the changes, and I am sure you didn't mean to mislead anyone, but from some of the wording in the bill and from some of your comments, you'd almost think that somebody can currently walk away from loans and that these can be done in secret. I guess I'd just like to put on the record that under the current law, the details of loans, including every loan in the name of the lender and the guarantor, must be, and are, publicly disclosed. So I would just like to put that on the record. That is the case, as it currently exists.

You listed, at the beginning, some of the efforts your government has made to enhance transparency and accountability in public life. But it's interesting. Are any of these initiatives ever going to address third-party advertising and spending? I look south at this, where we've all seen some of the effects of the political action committees in the United States. Nationally, we have the National Citizens Coalition, and I'm wondering how, if at all, there is any effort to address these kinds of expenditures—which I would tell you do impact the outcome of elections.

The other issue that I don't see covered right now, and which I think would be interesting to explore.... I can choose any number of floor crossings, but I think I would choose Mr. Emerson's, because his was probably one of the more recent floor crossings. Under this regime, how, if at all, would the Liberals—who were so upset with that floor crossing two weeks after an election—recover the money if they had taken out a loan? What would their recourse be to recover that money, because it seems to me they had legitimate umbrage? So I'd like to hear how you would address that, if at all, through this.

And my last question would be, are we sure this is charter compliant? Has that question been referred to an expert, and has that been answered?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Those are many, many questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

There are six questions and two comments.

If you could do it in two minutes, that would be historic.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Is the Hon. Belinda Stronach in there, too?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'll give you a full two minutes.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

If I could, Mr. Chair, I already addressed the issue of wealthy or powerful individuals.

In terms of women and the question of equity and credit history, I think I already addressed that. This bill does create a level playing field. In particular, if you're talking about women as candidates in a campaign, as I said, where this has been the case in Ontario, banks tend to make contributions based on a guarantee of the return of the rebate you get. In our case, it would be from Elections Canada. That would allow somebody a fair bit of financing room. So that is how they tend to approach it, rather than on the creditworthiness of the individual, because they are well aware of the individual's constraints in making the contributions. That's where it actually levels the playing field, for those who are not of great means and who lack those financial resources and networks, as women do. In fact, this improves their position and their opportunities.

I know Madam Redman is writing something on that response, but in terms of the Ellen Fairclough Fund, the Conservative equivalent of the Judy LaMarsh Fund and Equal Voice, and so on, those contributions to people's nomination campaigns effectively became illegal under the Liberal legislation. That's where that difficulty arose. There's nothing new in this legislation affecting that one way or another.

The next issue is the details of loans. There is a requirement for disclosure, you're quite right, but it is inconsistent between different types of candidates. Whether you're a riding candidate or a party or a candidate for nomination, there are different disclosure requirements. We are trying to make them consistent across the board.

On third-party advertising and spending, there is a law in place now. It continues to be in place and in effect; it does have limits. Of course, the limit nationally is $150,000 for a third-party campaign.

The next item is the issue of people crossing the floor. I know that's an interesting one. I'm sure the member from Mississauga—Streetsville, who actually made his own loan to his riding association, will be interested to see how that gets resolved and whether the party reimburses that. This is another matter.

Our legislation, of course, is only prospective; we are not seeking to have any retrospective application. I don't think that would be fair or equitable. So there won't be any retrospective application, either to cases like that or situations like, for example, the Liberal leadership campaigns. Under our legislation, it's not proposed to have those existing loans fall under our coverage.

There are some who have argued, including in the other parties, that we should make it retrospective in reach. My view has always been that it's a fundamental principle of natural justice that legislation should not be retroactive. It should not capture people who were relying, at the time they did whatever it is they did, on a legal regime in place at the time. They should be entitled to continue to rely on the law that was there at the time they made those decisions.

Finally, in terms of charter compliance, we're quite confident this is charter compliant. As I indicated, this regime has operated at a number of levels. There are far more restrictive regimes. For example, in the province of Manitoba, the regime is far more restrictive, and it has continued to operate successfully, regardless of complaints. We have a system that creates a level playing field, that creates adequate opportunities for public financing as well, and that ensures there is a functioning process. I think it would be very difficult for anybody to argue that their charter rights are in any way significantly compromised under this, or any of the previous legislation brought in regarding political financing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

We obviously went over time a little there, but I believe the witness did exceptionally well in answering a number of questions.

Let's go on then, please.

Mr. Preston, for five minutes.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have a couple of technical questions, if you could help me. I think you've hit the nail on the head that the rebate is usually what the loan is held against on a riding level basis. It's usually on the prospect of some money being returned from Elections Canada after the fact.

But if indeed the loans are greater, would they then have to be guaranteed against personal guarantees?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Not necessarily. There are certainly cases where financial institutions.... Right now, the disclosure requirements are that when a candidate in a riding does obtain a loan, they are also required to disclose the amount to Elections Canada, though I don't believe they're required to disclose the interest rate. And they're required to disclose the name of a guarantor, if there is one, so the name of that guarantor becomes publicly disclosed.

If you go through the existing loans of candidates in Election Canada returns right now, you will see there are some candidates who have personal guarantors for their loans, but there are many who do not. That, obviously, is a decision of the banking institution whether or not to do so.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I have another small question, and then I'll pass my time on.

Say I were to guarantee a loan for someone up to the $1,100 that I'm allowed, as my contribution to that person that year, and the loan were repaid. Contributions came in, so they repaid the loan. Would that free up my $1,100?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Before the end of the year?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Yes.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

That's a very good question. This is something you might want to consider at this committee, finding a way to make it operationally functional.