Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2007

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

That's what I'm saying. So they can take that option and just waive it and say they'll take it as a contribution, but over time.

[Mike Stockfish]

Right, within the contribution limits.

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

Within the contribution limits. Okay.

Those are the only questions I had.

[Mike Stockfish]

And if the amount of loan was larger than the contribution limits and it all hit in one year, then the association would be required to either reimburse it—

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

Read it as an asset or a debt until the next year?

[Mike Stockfish]

Or forfeit that amount of money to Elections Ontario. It then becomes an ineligible contribution, if it's over the limit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Lukiwski, would you like to take the rest of the time? You have two minutes.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Yes, thank you, Chair. Just a quick comment on Madam Redman's comments that perhaps if you have a newly established party, like the Brown Bread Party, I think you used as an example, your democratic right may be somewhat denied because you haven't got the ability to access a loan through a financial institution. Again I go back to my point that it has been my experience, certainly federally, that almost any candidate who approaches a bank for a loan has to put up security, and they usually have the bankroll of the constituency association behind them.

My point is that if the constituency association didn't have the wherewithal or the ability to raise any funds themselves in order to leverage money from a bank, then perhaps that says something about the democratic right of that candidate. If a candidate doesn't have the support of enough people to put $10,000 in the bank so he or she can borrow an additional $10,000 in a sign-back to the bank, then I'm not sure if a democratic right has been denied or usurped, because it doesn't appear that that many people would be willing to support that person to begin with.

The point is that currently we have a system in which almost any legitimate candidate has the ability to borrow money from a financial institution because of the backing of the constituency association, and if the constituency association is broke, it means not very many people are willing to support that particular candidate. So I think it works itself out. I don't think there's any particular demographic or any group of individuals who would be unduly penalized by this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

It sounds more like a comment, so there's no question. We're out of time, regardless.

Madam Guay.

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

I come back to what Tom has just said. He is quite right, except that when there are elections every two years or 17 months, raising the amount of money you need for a campaign is not easy. Here is what I do. You have financial agents—I suppose all associations have them—you go to the bank, with the money that you have accumulated for one, two or three years, depending on the timing of the election, and you borrow up to 60% of the difference, which represents the reimbursement you will receive.

I do not know if that is the way you do it in Ontario. How much time do you have to wait before being reimbursed in Ontario? We have to do a final report. I find that procedures at the federal level take a long time.

[Mike Stockfish]

The length of time depends on the volume of the returns that come in. We do not send out our campaign expense subsidy cheques until that return has been reviewed and approved. In the case of the parties, there is a clause within our legislation that allows the chief electoral officer to provide 50% before that, but that does not apply to the candidates.

In terms of time, we're trying to get better. That's one of our performance metrics, our key performance indicators, that we try to do our initial review of all returns within three months. The onus then becomes for us, the chief financial officer or the official agent, to deal with the compliance questions, to get that approval of the final return.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Any other questions, colleagues?

Seeing that we appear to be done with our witness, I want to extend the committee's gratitude for your coming this morning, Mr. Stockfish. We certainly appreciate the time you have taken, as well as the time you took prior to coming, for your preparation. I think members have had some questions answered and perhaps a few others generated.

Having said that, I think what we'll do now is...I hate using the word “dismiss”; “excuse” is a much better word.

Mr. Stockfish, again, with the committee's thanks, we certainly appreciate your being here. The witness is excused.

Members, we do have a report in front of us from the CEO. We'll let you read that over, and we can debate it on Monday.

I need to remind members of what the committee agreed on at our last meeting, and this is that we would need any amendments that are recommended by the committee to get to the clerk Monday morning by 11 a.m., which would give us all 24 hours before Tuesday morning's 11 o'clock meeting. Just a reminder, if there are amendments, please have them no later than 11 a.m. Monday.

Just to remind you again, once the amendments are received, they will in fact be distributed to members in advance of the meeting.

Colleagues, I think what we're going to do now is suspend the meeting for one minute, so we can go in camera, as we need to discuss a potential report on a different matter by the committee, the matter of a conflict of interest code.

I'll suspend the meeting for one minute while we prepare to go in camera. Of course, I would like to remind members that once we're done with the code, Monsieur Guimond has asked for some time, and we're going to try to provide that.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, I will bring the meeting back to order. I would like to invite our witnesses to come forward to the table.

Audrey O'Brien is here with us today, if Monsieur Guimond or anybody has questions.

I appreciate your coming again on such short notice.

Monsieur Guimond, the floor is yours.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This concerns your unsuccessful attempt to table the 53^rd report on the statements and Commons questions of independent members. With the help of the clerk's office, I must just table a 53^rd report which could amend the one that you tried to table. I am just tabling it, and I am asking that, on Tuesday, there be unanimous approval to amend the 53^rd report. If everyone here agrees, you could table it.

For your information, my colleagues the party whips will consult independent members about the new wording. The goal of my comments is simply to table this report, and to ask the clerk, with your permission, Mr. Chair, to see that all our colleagues here receive a copy. We could resume the discussion on Tuesday.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I agree.

Does everybody else agree?

Mr. Owen, go ahead, please.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Excuse me, colleagues. Ms. Redman had to leave, but she has asked me to express the concern that the independent members themselves have not been consulted in this process, and she would be willing to take on the responsibility of taking this around to the independent members prior to Tuesday.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I said that in French.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Oh, did you? I missed that.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Aren't you using the translation? We have a very good translation service.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

To the chair, please.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

They are very competent.

I said that in French. I can repeat it in English. I'm not bilingual like you, but I try.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order, please.

Mr. Owen has the floor, please.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

While Mr. Guimond was expressing the offer in French, Ms. Redman was distracting me by suggesting it in English. So if we are of one mind, I'm not sure where that's left it as to who will take the responsibility to check with the independent members. Was that left to Karen?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

My understanding, then, colleagues, just so we can sum this up, is that Madam Redman is going to speak with the independents. We're going to put this forth on Tuesday, and we will get concurrence or we won't, depending on how those negotiations go.

Monsieur Godin.

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

Mr. Chair, it was not only Ms. Redmond's responsibility. An amendment was tabled. This is a public meeting. Independent members will be able to read the amendment and express their views about it. They are members of the House of Commons.