Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 18th, 2007

[Marc Chénier]

It is...

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

For example, let us say that next year, the candidates in the Liberal Party leadership race of December 2006 have all paid off their debts, and no longer owe any money. At that point, there will no longer be any way to make a financial contribution to the 2006 leadership race, because first of all, the race is over. Beyond that, since the candidates are no longer in debt, it is no longer possible to contribute in that way.

[Marc Chénier]

The person is presumed to be a nomination contestant from the previous campaign until his financial campaign is wrapped up. As soon as it is, he is no longer contesting the nomination.

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

I can understand that members of the Conservative government might want to put this bill into effect in order to cause problems for those who have not yet managed to pay off all their debts. They are raising money legally. Pulling the rug out from under them in that way is a bit much, in my opinion. But I know that you will not be making any comments on that, Mr. Chénier.

Mr. McDougall, you said it would be against the existing law if we were to change this. Could you explain that to me, please?

[Dan McDougall]

I didn't say it would be against it; I said it would be a change to the existing law.

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

Okay. Your answer was not a negative answer. You just acknowledged that it would represent a change in the actual law.

[Dan McDougall]

That's correct.

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

It was not a comment on whether it was appropriate or not.

[Dan McDougall]

It was no such comment.

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

Thank you, sir. For those reasons, I will be voting in favour.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Proulx.

Are there any other questions or comments on this amendment?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, clause 5 is a reasonably long one with a number of changes, with a number of line conflicts.

We'll start off with the first amendment by the NDP. That is amendment NDP-2, on page 3. This has a conflict with amendment L-1. You might want to pay attention to amendment L-1. If amendment NDP-2 is adopted, then L-1 cannot be proceeded with.

I call on Mr. Dewar to introduce amendment NDP-2, please.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I started off with this one erroneously when we started the amendments.

It is essentially to have some predictability, some firmness in terms of the rate, and some fairness in terms of transparency on what the rate would be, and to give a definition, so that it would read:

a loan referred to in subsection (1) at a minimum interest rate to be set as the prime bank rate plus 1% or higher.

Again, this is something that we think will provide more transparency and more fairness in terms of establishing what the rate is, so that there is no playing around with numbers, if you will, to gain advantage for any one particular group or political party, or candidate, for that matter. That is the intent of this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

If there any other comments, please raise your hands.

Mr. Owen, please.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

In looking at this amendment, Mr. Chair, and from the witnesses we had on Thursday and from considering officials' comments, what we're trying to achieve in the current act by the two suggested amendments is to make it a more objective process. What we heard on Thursday was that—I think all witnesses agreed—banks will favour, in some way, people with more assets in terms of interest rates, not simply as to whether they would grant a loan or not, but there would be lower rates. The fair market value that exists in the bill and the commercial value that would be suggested by Liberal amendment L-1 both introduce more subjectivity into it than this as a floor, so that it does actually create a greater chance of a level playing field.

In that situation, we would withdraw amendment L-1 and support amendment NDP-2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We are not on amendment L-1, but I'll take that under advisement when we get there. We'll ask for unanimous consent to withdraw that motion.

Colleagues are going to have to kind of estimate whether they are debating amendment NDP-2 or amendment L-1.

I actually have a list here. Mr. Lukiwski, I'll put you down.

A point of order, Mr. Reid.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, am I mistaken that in the event that this passes, you don't have to ask for unanimous consent, because effectively the Liberal amendment dies by virtue of the fact that this has passed?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

You are correct. We will not be dealing with LIB-1 at all. That's why I'm letting it go.

Mr. Lukiwski, and then Monsieur Guimond.

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

Thanks, Chair.

Very quickly, I don't think it's the role of Parliament to be dictating interest rates for financial institutions. I just don't believe that's our purpose here. Obviously we can entertain the witnesses and they can comment on the clause itself, but I just don't feel that's the role of this institution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Monsieur Guimond.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are going to vote against amendment NDP-2 for the following reason. Given that that the bill does not restrict interest rates charged on loans by a registered party, an association or a private individual, we see no use in setting a minimum rate. As we understand the bill, if someone agrees to lend me money at a rate lower than the commercial rate, I have to declare the difference as a contribution. So we oppose amendment NDP-2.

I am chuckling a little at our NDP friends. It is almost as if they want to give banks a break, which is not a habit of theirs. They have called the banks corporate bums before. I am surprised at amendment NDP-2, but we are going to vote against it.

I find it a pity, though, that the Liberals have withdrawn their amendment, because we wanted to vote for it. But they decided to withdraw it, so they will have to live with the consequences.

No one was listening to me, but anyway...

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid.

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

My intention is to vote against this. It's not that I think it's necessarily a bad idea, but vis-à-vis the place where loans are likeliest to be used, which is in actual races in a riding, it seems to me that effectively the rate of interest is going to be set by the certainty that the rebate from Elections Canada has been turned over, and it seems to me that the surety therefore is equally certain in all cases and the rate of interest is likely to be the same in all cases.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I would like to clarify a couple of points for my friends.

I won't comment on the NDP and banks; I'll leave that for others to figure out. But I will say, Chair, that the point of this is that if we're talking about the person contributing to an election and they've received a better interest rate, and this rate is lower than the going rate, that would then have to be established as a contribution. I don't think it would be very hard to establish that sometimes that would be unintended. A person might give a better rate of interest on the loan or contribution to any given candidate and they might be.... Are we now going to have Elections Canada well enough resourced to establish that each and every loan was at a certain rate, and what it was, and if it wasn't, that the person had to figure it out? This provides clarity and some baseline and foundation so that we don't have to get into that kind of exercise.

So I'd say to my friend from the Bloc that for reasons of fairness and transparency, as I said at the beginning, we set the rate so that it's understood, so everyone is playing by the same rules. I say to my friends in the Conservative Party--and I might be contradicted by our witnesses here, and if so, I need to know this--that this isn't setting the interest rate policy of the Bank of Canada. We're not into any boundary issues here, I believe; we're simply saying that for purposes of this legislation, we establish a floor, if you will. And the reason was that witnesses came forward and were concerned about the fairness in the floor and access to money, and that we have fairness from coast to coast to coast.

So I wanted to respond, Chair, to the comments made by my friends from the Bloc and the Conservatives on this. It's not about establishing bank policy; it's about establishing clear rules. To my friend from the Bloc, I don't understand how he would be against this because somehow someone was able to get a better rate for a loan and that this would then be something they would have to declare on their election expenses. I think that would be very difficult and have unintended consequences. Some innocent people might get charged if they're not aware of this, and this is providing certainty and fairness.