Evidence of meeting #59 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I'd just like to hear our witnesses' comments on this, to establish what this would do and how it would change the intent of the bill as it is presently written.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Perfect.
Could we have comments from our witnesses, please?
Marc.
Counsel, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
We're just adding to this amendment the dates and amounts of repayment of the principal and payments of interest that are made on the loan. If you look at amendment CPC-2, the amount of the loan that is repaid during the calendar year in which the loan was made will not count toward the contribution limits. This will allow for that provision to be enforced.
Director of Operations, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
In effect, this is a consequential amendment to a subsequent amendment, which appears later. The principle is established later on, and this would be a consequential amendment to that. It does come earlier in the package, though, but it relates to transparency provisions, so what is provided for later will be made clear in the reporting requirements.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
If I could just ask for clarification, is the later amendment to which this is consequential amendment CPC-2?
Director of Operations, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
That's right.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
My colleagues can refer to that.
Mr. Proulx, you are good?
Are there any other comments?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 4)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Colleagues, on clause 4 there is one amendment provided to us by the Liberal Party. It is amendment L-0.1 on page 2.1 in your package.
I would ask Mr. Owen to please introduce that amendment.
Liberal
Stephen Owen Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you.
The impact of this would be to allow leadership contestants to add in subsequent amounts in subsequent calendar years so that the restriction against loans—or guarantees, I suppose—to the indexed amount of $1,000 or $1,100 in one year would not be the total contribution or loan that could be made, but in subsequent years it could be added to as well for a particular leadership contest.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Any questions or comments?
Mr. Dewar, please, and then Mr. Reid.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I'd like to have our panel comment on how this changes things, notwithstanding Mr. Owen's explanation, and if this has any consequence or is related at all to the most recent changes to Bill C-2 and the caps on contributions, because that particular piece of legislation changed donations, obviously.
The first question is how this would change the bill. The second question is if this has any effect on recent changes to Bill C-2.
Director of Operations, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
This would have the effect of increasing, in these limited circumstances, the limits that were put in place via Bill C-2.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Mr. Reid, did you have a comment?
I'm still looking for other folks, if you can raise your hands, please.
Mr. Reid.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Mine is also a question to our officials.
My reading of this, and I stand to be corrected, which is why I'm asking you, is that it would also have a retroactive impact on the Liberal leadership contest that has been completed. It would allow people who have already made a donation to a particular leadership candidate, once this bill is given royal assent, to make further contributions to those leadership contests, one presumably in 2007 and an additional one in 2008, however long these debts are carried....
Do I understand this provision correctly?
Counsel, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
Since there's no provision specifying retroactive application, the law would be the law on the day of coming into force. From that day forward they would be able to give $1,100 in each of the calendar years after that.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Including to the leadership contest that's already over. Imagining that I had already contributed to one of the leadership contests in 2006, I would be able to retroactively continue contributing $1,100 in each year of this year, next year, and so on. Is that correct?
Counsel, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
If the individual was still a leadership contestant, because they haven't wrapped up their campaign yet, then that would be the effect.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Those campaigns are not, for these purposes, wrapped up at this point, are they?
Counsel, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
I haven't checked the returns posted on the Elections Canada website recently, but most of them weren't up until when they were posted a couple of weeks ago.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
If I understand correctly--and I can't say this is intentional or not--one of the practical effects of this appears to be to provide a method by which individuals can contribute in excess of the amounts allowed by Bill C-2, by our current law, to those leadership campaigns.
On that basis, Mr. Chairman, I would urge members to vote against this.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chénier, I would just like to correct the terminology. Though Mr. Reid mentioned a retroactive impact, I did not hear you mention retroactivity, because there is none. What you are saying is that, if a person wanted to contribute to a fundraising campaign to pay off a leadership candidate's debt, that person would be able to contribute $1,000 or $1,100 annually, starting from now, whether the race took place last year, or takes place this year or next. There is nothing retroactive in that. The leadership candidate's debt is not a retroactive one. It is a debt that exists now. If there is no debt or if there is no leadership race, people cannot make contributions. We have to understand this.
Do you agree with me?
Counsel, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office
Yes, you are right. The moment the act comes into effect, and at any time thereafter, a person can contribute $1,100 each calendar year.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
The person can do so as long as the debt is not paid off. Once a leadership candidate's debt is paid off, there is no longer any reason nor any legal way to conduct a fundraising campaign for a leadership race.
Right?