Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 18th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

This brings us to Lib-1, the Liberal amendment on page 4.

I will offer the floor to Mr. Owen.

Now, under these circumstances, do you feel you want to withdraw that amendment?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I'd like to get some comment from the officials, because we've heard from Elections Canada officials as to the difference between commercial value and fair market value as it might be applied to a political loan situation.

[Marc Chénier]

The choice of the fair market rate was deliberate, because the drafters informed us that an interest rate does not have a value per se, so that's why the bill that was introduced didn't refer to commercial value.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Subject to any other colleague's comments—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Yes. Are there any other comments on this?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

—I'm happy to ask for unanimous consent to withdraw it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw amendment Lib-1?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

(Amendment withdrawn)

Colleagues, we now go to CPC-2 on page 5. I will tell you that there is a line conflict with both Lib-2 and Lib-3. You might want to look at all of those at the same time. If CPC-2 is adopted, then Lib-2 and Lib-3 cannot be proceeded with, so please have a look at all of those at the same time.

I'm going to ask Mr. Preston to introduce CPC-2.

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

This is the piece that finishes what we started under CPC-1. It simply brings forward the ability, once a loan is paid off, to re-establish your contribution limit in a given year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Are there any comments or debate on that?

Mr. Owen, go ahead, please.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

We are, I think, trying to achieve the same result. We may get some opinion from our experts as to which wording might be preferable, but I think the intent of our two amendments is the same.

[Marc Chénier]

I'm assuming Mr. Owen is talking to Lib-3. Amendment CPC-2 also allows the amount of a guarantee or suretyship to be reclaimed, I guess, if it's paid back. The Liberal amendment does not do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Proulx.

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

I just want clarification from our experts. What's the difference between a guarantee and a suretyship?

[Marc Chénier]

It's official government policy to have bijural drafting in law, so the French and English versions both have to represent the common law and the civil law concepts. In the case of the English version, “guarantee” does not have the same meaning in the civil law, so that's why “suretyship” is needed.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Are we ready for the question?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

As a result of that, colleagues, amendments Lib-2 and Lib-3 on pages 7 and 8 respectively are automatically defeated.

We will deal now, colleagues, with amendment Lib-4 on page 9 of your booklet. There is no conflict with any other amendments on this.

I would ask Mr. Owen if he would introduce and move this amendment.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

I think Mr. Chénier's explanation for the use of suretyship plus guarantee brings new information to us, which is very helpful. Certainly in drafting this amendment we had been following the advice of Elections Canada. Looking at the English, “surety” and “guarantee” are synonymous, but that's not so, obviously, in the French. Therefore, in light of the information given to us by the government on Friday, I think this should be withdrawn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Technically it hasn't been moved by Mr. Owen, so it doesn't need to be withdrawn, but I see unanimous consent to withdraw it.

Colleagues, amendment NDP-3 is on page 10, and I am going to ask Mr. Dewar to help the committee with this. It is my opinion and the opinion of our legislative people that amendment NDP-3 may also apply to amendments NDP-5, NDP-8, NDP-9, NDP-10, NDP-12, NDP-13, NDP-14.

Mr. Dewar is shaking his head.

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

Could you repeat that, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Yes. Colleagues, I apologize for going so fast.

Amendment NDP-3 on page 10 may have some consequential issues and may also apply to amendments NDP-5, NDP-8, NDP-9, NDP-10, NDP-12, NDP-13, and NDP-14, but not amendment NDP-11. I do not have NDP-11 down here. It seems to be significantly different.

Colleagues, if you notice, coming up next is amendment NDP-3. NDP-4 is not relevant, but NDP-5 is also coming up. We will now deal with amendment NDP-3 and we'll muddle our way through how this applies to the other ones.

I'm going to ask Mr. Dewar to introduce amendment NDP-3 on page 10.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Actually, I will move that, Chair, and perhaps turn to our panel. I'll explain the reason for it. But there is a cascading effect here, and maybe we could hear from our panel on the net effect the amendments would have on the bill.

Essentially this just changes the timelines from what was in the bill, 18 months, to three years, and that was simply to give people more opportunity to deal with the financial aspects of the bill. We have heard testimony, I'm told, from people who were asking for this kind of extension. I don't think it takes away from the important intent of this bill and the importance of having limits on loans and on any loopholes within loans.

That is the intent of these amendments. Maybe we can go to the panel on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Would anyone from the panel want to comment on that? Mr. McDougall or Mr. Chénier.