Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 29th, 2012

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

Thank you.

Thank you, again, Mr. Kingsley, for being here.

I want to go back to Bill C-21 and get your observations on some of its elements.

One of the ongoing problems we have is that we've seen, for example, from the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign, that there are still outstanding loans from some of their leadership contestants. I think they total over $400,000. I think elements of Bill C-21 would go a long way toward preventing that type of situation from happening again, specifically since, as you've mentioned, loans could only be granted through financial institutions.

The problem we see now with the unpaid loans is that they will probably end up being deemed contributions, since it's been six years in the case of some of those contestants. If a party were to backstop a financial institution's loan through a legal contract between the two, it would be difficult for a party or an EDA to renege on repayment because there would be consequences, but in the existing regime, since Bill C-21 hasn't been passed into law yet, there's still that loophole.

Do you see in Bill C-21 enough preventative measures to stop the type of situation we saw in 2006? You're going further. You're making the suggestion that the party be the guarantor, in effect, and that's not contained in Bill C-21. In your read of Bill C-21, does it have enough provisions in it to prevent the type of situation we saw in 2006 from occurring again?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

It may well have. By limiting it to financial institutions as the only institutions that can borrow, it introduces a significant “brake” in the system, as opposed to “break”. It is significant.

I was attempting to shut down after a reasonable period of time—three years—the whole issue of loans that are not repaid, so that the next election would be fought with a clean slate, so that you're not into.... Even with financial institutions, you may well be into a six-year drag. There's nothing that says it will be handled within three years unless you put it in the statute, and that's what I was attempting to do. By forcing the parties to be responsible for the debt, you force them to say that this is the maximum amount we will allow you to borrow.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have a minute to go.

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

It puts another level of guarantee onto it, right?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Yes.

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

What do you make of the current system, though, wherein leadership contestants who have unpaid loans after the prescribed repayment period have the ability—time after time, it seems—to ask for extensions?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Sir, I live that regime, and it is hell.

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

Yes, I bet.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

As Chief Electoral Officer, on what do you base your judgment about extending or not extending? Yet I had to do it. You know, you give the benefit of the doubt to people, to people in this room. You must give the benefit of the doubt on these issues, unless you find something that was done criminally and is against the statute. It is hell.

The scheme I'm proposing eliminates the Chief Electoral Officer from doing that. It eliminates even the judge from doing that. You simplify the whole process. You eliminate the crack so that no one can drive a truck through it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Madame Turmel is next.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Kingsley. We very much appreciate your comments because you have a great deal of experience.

Under the system you are proposing, from the moment an individual is appointed, that individual could be granted a loan if he or she needed it.

However, if that system were not adopted, what percentage would you suggest? What would it be if an individual was appointed, we were operating under the former system and an election had not been called? Do you have a recommendation?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I liked the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendation on seed costs of approximately $4,000. However, the committee may well prefer that the amount be $5,000 or $3,500. The committee could propose another amount, since its members know better what is necessary for a candidate to undertake an election campaign.

I believe that amount is reasonable. I also very much liked the idea that the same person could donate $1,200 over three years. That amount would be repaid. That would mean a contribution of $3,600, which is not scandalous in our federal system.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I was referring to the situation if an election was not called.

I have a second question. In our discussion, we have given a great deal of consideration to the power of the association and of the party over candidates. I defended women for years, and I can say that this is often done to their detriment. When you incur a debt, you want to have the biggest chance and, consequently, the best known person. How can we solve that problem? This troubles me a great deal.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I did not take that phenomenon into consideration in my proposal. I believe the parties have to examine their conscience regarding the way women are treated in the nomination system. I am convinced of that. With the royal commission, there was an attempt to interfere legally in the entire process, but Parliament and Canadians said they did not want that included in the act. I believe that the situation has to improve but that the matter is in the hands of the parties and riding associations.

However, that is not the biggest problem. As you know, the problem with women's involvement in local electoral associations is not only financial, but especially one of initial access. That is more serious.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Scott, you have one minute.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Mayrand also spoke to us, Mr. Kingsley, on two points. He suggested that we need to have a provision to make sure that no indirect loans could take place. I know that your system might make that less of an issue. I'm assuming that if we kept the system and tinkered with whatever in Bill C-21, you would say as well that we should add a prohibition on that.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Yes. You don't want indirect loans.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Right, and it's not there. We have a provision on indirect contributions, but we don't have that mirrored yet in Bill C-21.

There's one I found a little bit hard to get my mind around. I've been playing with some language for a discussion with my colleagues at some point.

He talked about selling or maybe even leasing goods or services on credit as a potential backdoor way of giving loans. I think he probably meant that if the credit is a long-term credit, it functions as a loan. In the general running of elections, has that issue ever come up as a problem?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I don't know if the allusion was being made to a debt, really, a long-term credit. Someone has provided you with service is what he was saying....

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

But you don't have to pay it back for six months.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Then it becomes a debt after six months.

In my view, the whole issue should be dealt with as a debt. He said that he was recommending looking at the debts as well, at the same time, which I don't think is covered in Bill C-21 at this time.

With respect to debts, it's money owed for services rendered and not paid for. If there is no legal contestation by either party about the debt, then it is a debt. If there is, then what I say doesn't apply. If it is a debt and both parties agree, but I as a candidate don't have the money and the EDA does not have it, it cannot be repaid. Either it is a bad debt or the person persists in maintaining the debt on the books, in which case you continue to reflect it as a debt owed by that campaign.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

For the moment, that's the way it would work. I think his concern is that it could actually function as a planned loan.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

If it is planned, the statute allows that to be referred to the commissioner. If that is the thing, then that is fraud and it is against the law, against the Canada Elections Act, and you then recommend prosecution as commissioner and prosecute the person.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Scott.

We'll go to Mr. Williamson.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you.

Is it four or five minutes?