Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 18th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Is everybody in agreement with that?

(Subamendment agreed to)

(Amendment as amended agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, we're at amendment BQ-1, on page 15 of your booklet.

Monsieur Guimond, would you introduce that, please?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Without wishing to take shots at my colleagues in other parties, I point out that this is the Bloc Québécois' only amendment. We preferred quality to quantity.

I just want to tell you that Bill C-54, as presently written, says that if a candidate cannot pay back a debt, it is the political party, if there is no registered riding association, that assumes the responsibility for paying the amount owing, just as if it had guaranteed the loan. So the party would lose all control over loans negotiated by candidates.

By way of analogy, imagine that I was allowed by law to borrow as much money as I liked. If the bank manager asked me who was guaranteeing the loan, I could say that it was my cousin across the street. I have not discussed it with him, but he ends up as the guarantor. As it stands, with the present wording, the responsibility lies with the political party. The aim of the amendment is to remove that provision. I hope that my colleagues will vote in favour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Lukiwski, could we have your comments, please?

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

Very quickly and very simply, Mr. Chair, I'll be voting against this amendment because it absolutely contradicts one of the main policies of the bill, and that is accountability. If the candidate cannot repay the loan, then it is incumbent upon the registered party or the riding association to absorb that liability. That's one of the fundamental tenets of this bill, so I cannot support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Are there any other comments?

Madam Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Further to Tom's comment, this just requires notification. It doesn't stop them from doing it. Is that right?

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

I do not understand. The candidate in debt remains responsible. The political party does not have to shoulder that responsibility, it is not the party's fault. Normally, the person responsible for a debt is the one who signs the agreement.

This is more than a question of notification. It is about removing the responsibility for a candidate's debt from a political party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Can we perhaps ask our experts if Bill C-54 allows for the possibility of an individual borrowing without a limit on behalf of another entity?

If someone can go to the bank and borrow as much as he likes, the responsibility for the debt should be his rather than the political organization's. Otherwise, that organization could find itself vulnerable. Is this not the real problem that we have to solve in Bill C-54?

[Marc Chénier]

I would like to make a small correction. It is not the person as an individual who takes out the loan, it is the campaign. But the fact remains that, as presently written, the bill requires the local association or the party to assume responsibility for the debts or unpaid loans of its candidate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Lukiwski, and then Mr. Owen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I go back to my original statement, because this is really contradicting the intent of one of the major policies and tenets of this bill, which is to make sure that someone is accountable at the end of the day.

I'll give you an example from my home province of Saskatchewan. In the last federal election—I won't name the candidate or the party—a candidate ultimately declared bankruptcy. Included in his liabilities was an $8,000 personal loan from one of my constituents. Quite frankly, I think this guy is a scam artist, and that's why I'm not going to get into details about his name or the party. Had there been this provision in place, at least this poor, naive young kid who forked over $8,000 out of his own pocket would have had some opportunity to recover his cash.

The way this bill is now, if you have a candidate who, for whatever reason, either purposely or inadvertently goes bankrupt, and sticks someone—whether it be individuals or suppliers—with unpaid bills, I just don't think that's right. It's probably incumbent upon the parties to ensure that the types of candidates they're attracting, or at least running in a federal election, honour their obligations. If they don't, then I think it's incumbent upon the party to do so.

This is a very key provision of this bill—to make sure that no one has the opportunity to default on a loan. I think we have to defeat this for that reason, so I'll be voting against this. If the candidate doesn't come up with the cash, then the party or the registered association has to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Proulx is next, and then we have Mr. Dewar.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, I understand this change very clearly. Nowhere does it say that loans must be endorsed or guaranteed by the association. From what we can read in the bill before us, the association and the party are not necessarily aware of the situation. The Bloc Québécois' amendment seeks only to establish a normal situation by removing the association or the party from responsibility for a debt they knew nothing about.

So we say in the amendment that the Chief Electoral Officer must inform the claimant, the candidate's registered riding association, or if there is no registered association, the party. I feel that, somewhere in this bill, it should have been clearly, honestly and transparently stated that the association or the party would be ultimately responsible for the debt, but that has not been done. This is why I think the Bloc Québécois is perfectly right to remove that part of the clause, in order to prevent any association or political party from becoming responsible for the debt.

It is simply that the government lacked transparency in preparing this bill. As a committee, we want to add that transparency. So I will vote for the amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci.

We have Mr. Dewar and then Mr. Owen.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'd like to hear from our panel on Mr. Lukiwski's contention about this really going against the intent of the bill. Mr. Lukiwski mentioned that this would, in essence, undermine—if I may paraphrase—the intent of the bill, so I would comment on that and what effects this would have.

The other question I have is about what happens when a candidate leaves debt behind with the riding association and crosses the floor to another party.

[A voice]

No, that couldn't happen.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

No, I know it couldn't happen, but I've heard tell that it might in the future.

If that were the case, who would be holding--

[An hon. member]

Which party?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Which party? I don't know. I can't keep track of you guys.

How would this amendment affect that situation? In other words, if someone who has incurred debt crosses the floor to another party—they walk away—with this amendment, what would happen? Would this affect that at all?

This is just a question about Mr. Lukiwski's concern about this amendment affecting the intent and thrust of the bill, and secondly about the situation in which someone crosses the floor and leaves the party and leaves the debt behind.

[Marc Chénier]

Mr. Chair, I'll answer the second one of these questions. I'm not sure it is our role to answer the first one.

On the second one, right now the Canada Elections Act is blind to what happens after the person is elected, so it's the association or the party that endorsed the candidate during the election that would assume liability for the debt.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

With this amendment, that would remain the case?

[Marc Chénier]

The Bloc amendment would remove the assumption of liability by the association.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

That's correct. Thank you.