Evidence of meeting #53 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Would it be possible to get a list of the positions that have been eliminated? I especially want to see the distinction between executive and other positions.
11:55 a.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
I do not have it to hand, but we could definitely submit it to the chair.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you very much.
That concludes our review of supplementary estimates (B).
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, Madam Clerk, Mr. Watters, and all of your staff for the fine job that is done in running this place. I recognize that it's a huge undertaking, and it's really good that you've given all the hard problems to the Sergeant-at-Arms.
11:55 a.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
He has long had a sword, so he's good to go.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
He can handle it.
Thank you again for coming today. We will suspend for a couple of minutes while we switch out. Thank you.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Folks, I will get us to start back in, please.
It's always good when my own colleagues don't even recognize when I gavel.
Thank you very much. We have a full second hour today, and I'd like to get started.
It's a great pleasure to have Mr. Kingsley back before committee. It's probably five times now that I've been at committee when you have been here. It has always been a great day when it happens.
You know that we've been studying Bill C-21. As you shared with me, you watched some of it and you have some suggestions for us, perhaps, or at least some points of view on it.
I'll leave you to open with comments, and then we'll go to questions.
Noon
Jean-Pierre Kingsley Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, appearing before this committee is always a great pleasure for me. I see there is continuity, both in the chair and among certain members.
I have had the opportunity to examine Bill C-21, mainly its objectives, and the testimony of the Chief Electoral Officer and representatives of the Canadian Bankers Association. My opening remarks will only take about eight or nine minutes. I would like to recall that the Canadian system, the Quebec system for controlling funds, has made Canada, Quebec, a world leader in the control of money.
Canada understood a long ago that if the system did not control the money, the money could easily control the system. It is important to bear in mind that you are examining what I would call the most refined points in the control of money. We are not dealing with absolutely atrocious scandals, but it is very important to solve the problems that may arise as a result of the present definitions.
I really liked the analogy that one of the committee members made, that money is like water, in that it can seep into all the cracks. It seeks equilibrium, but moves downward. I have previously said that the smallest crack could eventually allow a Garda or Brink's truck to drive through it. So it is very important to make sure there are no cracks.
I share the concerns expressed by the Chief Electoral Officer regarding the complex nature of the proposed system and those concerning certain aspects on which you might focus your attention. I agree that there is a need for complete transparency and periodic reports that would be made public. I also agree that only financial institutions should be allowed to make loans. That moreover is the recommendation I made before I left my position in 2007.
Two options are possible here.
If the loan is unpaid by the agent at the end of the three years, the EDA would pay. If the EDA cannot pay, then the party would pay. This would obviously mean that the party may wish to get involved, but that is something for internal workings of parties. It would certainly start getting people to be more responsible about the loans that are taken out.
The second thrust would be to allow loans to leadership contestants, again from financial institutions only, up to an amount approved by the party for the leadership for three years, keeping in mind that parties don't have ceilings. There's no ceiling in the law. Parties are free to set the ceilings on expenditures. They may well be entitled to set ceilings for their candidates. Obviously the logic is if it's unpaid at the end of three years, then the party pays. Again, this would instill a sense of reasonableness in the process.
I also note that in their testimony, the banking association representatives stated that grounds for loans would be economic. They would make money available based on the ability of the person to repay and their ability to make money in the process. I took a lot of comfort from that, realizing that no political grounds would be invoked for turning down a loan. That came back to Mr. Reid's concern about independent candidates and candidates from smaller or marginal parties with ideas that are not yet mainstream.
The result would be that the debt would be finalized. It would be off the books. One would have achieved separation of the member of Parliament from the debt. There would be no more undue influence, no potential for it, no perception of it in the minds of the public. The CEO—the Chief Electoral Officer—and the courts would no longer be involved in extending this very complex system. It would be simple to administer, and parties and EDAs would effectively have control over the system to instill responsibility.
In a nutshell, that is the suggestion, sir—not the recommendation, not the proposal, but the suggestion I would like to make to the committee for further discussion.
The objective of Bill C-21, in my view, is it seems to remove the reality, the perception, or the potential of undue influence on a member of Parliament or on a party leader through loans.
The capacity to exceed the contribution limit by the back door is essentially what you're trying to shut down. I thought I would make a suggestion to you for a very simple system, based on the view that the more complex the system, the more tangled the web that is woven, to quote somebody who is well known to most of us.
As I mentioned earlier, in my view—and this I think is the purport of the bill—only financial institutions should provide financing to parties, to candidates, or to any emanation in the political sphere. The terms and the conditions should be made public, and as soon as possible. I struck out “immediately” in my notes, realizing that “as soon as possible” may be better.
There are essentially two broad strokes to what I'm going to suggest to you, allowing for the fact that they may well be shot down and hoping that people will keep in mind that I've been absent from this particular statute for five years now.
I would suggest that loans to nomination contestants and candidates—from financial institutions only—would be only up to an amount approved by the electoral district association, and only for the maximum of three years that we're talking about. The maximum amount could be up to some percentage of the ceiling that may be spent on the campaign, and it could be based on what the EDA itself wishes to establish, so that the EDA would have something there.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for coming to meet with us, Mr. Kingsley.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We're trying something new, just for today. We'll leave it.
Go ahead, Mr. Scott.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
It's just strange, because the sheet says it's you but it's really the Conservatives. If you don't mind—
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
It reads Scott Reid. You're off to a good start, and I want to hear the rest of it.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'm going to go with it. Mr. Reid, you'll be next, I promise you.
12:10 p.m.
An hon. member
It could be another Scott.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
In the interest of the graciousness you're seeing take place before your eyes, I think I'll leave some of the questions with respect to your system until the second round or until my colleagues may open.
I'd like to go back to some of the concrete proposals in the current bill that have been causing us some problems. I think your system may not necessarily solve these particular problems because they're at the level of guarantees, loans, and contributions, and the limits on those and how they interact.
One of the primary features of the bill is that we begin with the roughly $1,200 contribution limit that's already established in the law. We basically say that through a combination of guarantees, loans, and contributions, no given individual can guarantee or contribute in any given year more than that $1,200.
Monsieur Mayrand told us he thought that would be unworkable. There would be too much of a sliding scale in constantly having to figure out if a bank loan has been paid back, and then the guarantees are released whether or not loans have been paid back, etc. He suggested some kind of divorcing, so that there might be two streams. Possibly, if I understood him correctly, we might put loans and contributions in one stream, meaning you can either lend or contribute up to $1,200 for a fiscal year, or you can guarantee up to $1,200 for a year against a bank loan.
I'm wondering if you've given any thought to his testimony on that point. It was in fact the only point that he said was absolutely essential from a workability perspective. He also had other concerns, but he emphasized that one. Do you have any views on that?
12:10 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
I indicated that I shared the concerns that Mr. Mayrand brought forth to the committee. I wasn't specific about this one, but I am certainly in agreement with him. The workability of a scheme involving guarantees of up to $1,200 from individuals is very hard, especially when one considers the amount that they've repaid, and then they can increase the amount that they would give. This is going to be very difficult.
I also should have indicated that I agree that it should be no longer a per event $1,200, but a per year $1,200 in order to facilitate the gathering of moneys, but what I'm proposing to you does away with guarantees entirely. The guarantee is provided by the EDA. The guarantee is provided by the party, or both, if they want to provide a guarantee. There's no longer an individual providing the guarantee.
If I may just say so, I know how difficult it is to collect on a pledge that you receive. I've heard about this. I think you would be one step removed on a loan guarantee, one step removed further away than a pledge for candidates and contestants to go and pick up moneys to repay an institution. That's why, under what I'm proposing, they're out of the game.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I will actually now engage in that part of the proposal, because I would worry that new forms of unworkability or even inequality might enter into the picture because some EDAs will be in a position to credibly put up a rebate as part of a collateral. Banks will still look for collateral. Some EDAs will be in a good position, some won't. Incumbent-MP EDAs will be in much better positions than the EDAs of non-incumbents. Marginal parties will be in a very different position. If the bank is only able to look at those two entities and the likelihood of them being able to pay back, and if banks on an economic approach are asking for collateral, it's not immediately clear what the collateral will be, at least for EDAs.
12:15 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
If I were a financial institution, a credit union, or whatever, I would look at what the results were in the previous election, whether the person was elected or not. This is a fact of life now for independent candidates and it is a fact of life for people who represent parties that are considered marginal at this time. Under any scheme that I can think of and under any system, I don't know how one can equalize the chances. One can only level the playing field so much.
I share your concern, but I don't know how to address it beyond what is there already as a system.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Great—well, not so great, but great for answering. Thank you.
I understand that what you've said is indeed a cleaner-lined system. That I will concede, but I think it takes us quite some distance from what the sponsor of the bill was trying, so we'll have to go back and see where we might want to compromise, if some of what you say is persuasive.
However, am I right in understanding that by having the EDAs set the limits for nomination candidates or election candidates, the sky could be the limit, as in whatever the...? It could be up to, say, $85,000.
12:15 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
If I were an EDA, certainly I would not, for a nomination contestant, go beyond the 10% that they're authorized to. That is the limit in the law that one can spend for a nomination contest. Certainly, that cannot be exceeded.