Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 6th, 2011

[Marc Mayrand]

It may be seen as a limit on the right to be a candidate, which is also protected by the charter.

All you have to be is a Canadian citizen who has reached the age of 18. It would have to be submitted to the test of whether it's reasonable under the circumstances. There may be, again, a good reason, but I think how we crafted such a prohibition would be quite critical to meet the test of being reasonable.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

We'll hear from Mr. MacKenzie. We're going to do a couple of one-offs. We have about four minutes left. We're going to try to get in those who haven't asked a question yet.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mayrand, the whole issue being talked about here, theoretically taking away corporate and large contributions, has somehow, I think, been turned into pretty much a grey area. I would suggest to you that if a corporation wished to go to a political party and make a large contribution to have its signs erected at a convention it knew the national press was going to cover, then, if I understand what you're saying, that would be okay as long as there was some sort of value received for the money they spent. It seems to me it's gone beyond what was intended in this whole thing.

[Marc Mayrand]

Again, the transaction has to be examined in the context of the commercial world and whether it was done at fair market value. Again, any variance from the commercial value would be treated as a contribution, and in this case an illegal one.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

It would seem to me, though, that--

[Marc Mayrand]

The commercial value cannot be just the opinion of those who enter the transaction. That's what I am saying.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Absolutely, I understand that. But it would seem to me that you've opened up what was the intent to close it off. If a corporation wanted to have that sign erected, and a party suggested that at their convention it would get national exposure, it would be a pretty expensive proposition. The advertising costs could be pretty high.

[Marc Mayrand]

Again, that's a matter that has arisen recently. The committee may very well wish to look into this more closely and determine whether amendments are necessary and what those amendments would be.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll have the last question from Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I was just going to ask the question Mr. Reid asked. Have you sought a legal opinion? If we were going to say at a certain stage that you cannot run again, either for leadership, because you have not complied, or even to stand as a candidate in the next election.... Have you sought a legal opinion as to whether that would survive a charter challenge?

[Stéphane Perrault]

I can answer the question. Of course, I won't provide my legal advice to the committee.

It was put in the recommendations as something for the committee to consider. It was not a recommendation but a recognition that there is a range of possibilities to bring some closure, going from a strict liability offence to the ultimate inability to sit. I should mention that it would not be permanent any more than is permanent the current inability to become a candidate if you haven't filed your return for the last election. So it's not entirely unprecedented in the legislation. It was not made as a recommendation; it was put to the committee to look into the broadest possible range of sanctions that could bring some closure, which is not the case right now with the current regime.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

We've reached our limit for time for questions today. I thank you for coming.

You know that we've set aside a number of meetings now, and we'll continue to look at your recommendations. As we heard today, there are a couple of other things it sounds like we'd better discuss too. Thank you again for coming.

It looks as if it will be next Thursday before we start working on those recommendations.

I have a motion I'd like to get the committee to move and vote on. The motion is that the evidence and documentation received by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs during the third session of the 40th Parliament in relation to its study on the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada entitled "Responding to Changing Needs - Recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada Following the 40th General Election" be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session.

That's asking that the testimony we looked at last time now be available to us.

[An hon. member]

So moved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

(Motion agreed to)

Great, we now have that in our quiver of weapons. Thank you.

We are adjourned.