Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 18th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Hold on one second.

Colleagues, I apologize. I was not made aware of this. I understand there has been a change to the original NDP-4. The indication from my perspective is that I'll need unanimous consent to introduce this alteration to NDP-4. I don't need unanimous consent to withdraw it, because it never got moved, but I will need unanimous consent of the committee to accept the new version of the old NDP-4.

Do I have unanimous consent?

[An hon. member]

We need to see it beforehand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

The committee is asking to see the new version first. I think that's acceptable. Then I'll ask if the committee wants to adopt it. It's being passed out right now.

Colleagues, this might be a good opportunity for those who haven't already stepped up and gotten their lunch to do so. I think we'll officially suspend for one and a half minutes while members read this new version.

The meeting is suspended for one and a half minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, let's bring the meeting back to order.

Everybody has seen the updated version of NDP-4. I would ask Mr. Dewar to introduce it, but first of all, I want to have unanimous consent to technically waive the 24-hour notice for this motion, as I deem it to be a new motion that is actually in order.

Colleagues will notice one slight mistake in the English version right away. Everybody is aware that there is a word missing. The word “not” is missing.

Do I have unanimous consent for this committee to accept this motion as a replacement of the original NDP-4?

On a point of order, Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

It's really a question of order.

Would it be appropriate, before we consider unanimous consent, to hear what the effect of the change is, in the mind of the proposer?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Is that okay with the committee? I'm at the committee's will. It seems to make sense.

Mr. Dewar, please.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the committee for their indulgence, and I thank the clerk for pointing out the omission of the word “not” in the second line of the new and improved NDP amendment.

What we have is more clarity in the amendment that we're proposing right now to replace the amendment we had tabled before, so that there's no question we're talking about the guarantee of a loan and to make sure there's no ambiguity there. We've added a couple of lines to ensure there's no ambiguity that we're talking about a loan guarantee to a candidate. Simply put, it's to put in the words “may guarantee a loan”. That's in the NDP amendment that you have in front of you to replace the NDP amendment that was tabled on June 11.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, I think we're at the stage right now where we either just give unanimous consent to introduce the motion.... And I have concerns with that, but I'm just the chair. We can debate it out, and vote it up or vote it down. I don't think we need to debate it at this stage. We need to accept whether or not we're going to debate it.

Do I have unanimous consent to accept this new version of amendment NDP-4?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We have unanimous consent.

Mr. Dewar, you have given your explanation.

The amendment is moved. Is there debate on this amendment?

Mr. Reid, please.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Chairman, this ultimately takes the form of a question to Mr. Dewar, through you, of course.

I've just been reading new proposed subsection 405.7(1.1), comparing it to proposed subsection 405.7(1), which it follows in the text of the bill. Proposed subsection 405.7(1) talks about a loan and talks about contributions to a registered party, registered association, candidate, leadership contestant, or nomination contestant. I have the impression, from reading new proposed subsection 405.7(1.1), that this refers only to a loan to a candidate, not to a registered party or registered association, leadership contestant, or a nomination contestant.

I don't know if that is the intention, but that's really what I'm asking, if it's to be that narrow.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

That was our intention, yes, singular to a candidate.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

So it's not for someone seeking a nomination, not for leadership....

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. McDougall, do you have a comment?

[Dan McDougall]

Yes, Mr. Chair, if I may.

I would just point out that there may be a conflict between this provision and the one that was previously adopted by the committee in the version of amendment CPC-2, which actually specifies the amounts of guarantees that can be made in any one year, that being $1,100. This provision seems to be suggesting that notwithstanding the contribution limit for guarantees of $1,100, there indeed be—if I read this correctly—a $3,300 guarantee contemplated here.

So I'm not certain that there's not a conflict between the two provisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Dewar, I think you have the answer to that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair. I just want to establish to our panel that it was to ensure that if there were a default, that would be considered as a contribution. That's why the $3,300 is intended here—in other words, $1,100 per year over three years. If it's paid back, no problem. If it isn't, default. That's then considered a contribution.

That is, I guess, the intention here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Chénier.

[Marc Chénier]

Mr. Chair, I'd just like to point out that under amendment CPC-2, which was just adopted by the committee, the unpaid amount of a loan will already have been counted as a contribution during the year in which it was made. So this isn't a question of the paid amount of the guarantee. The unpaid amount of the guarantee would have been counted as a contribution during the year the loan was made. It wouldn't be counted again at this point if the amount were actually claimed by the lender.

I think the problem that the NDP is trying to solve here doesn't really exist under the proposed scheme.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

So perhaps the only way to do that, Chair, would be to have the famous Canadian term of “notwithstanding” apply here to make this work. So notwithstanding going back to amendment CPC-2—

[Marc Chénier]

If I understood this, I think it's more--

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

You're saying it's redundant.

[Marc Chénier]

I think so.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'll take that under advisement.

Can I just have 30 seconds, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Agreed.

Order, please, colleagues. We didn't suspend the meeting. I just offered Mr. Dewar 30 seconds to consult with his experts.

Are we anywhere, Mr. Dewar?