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.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kingsley, I listened to your comments and one question springs to mind. Would this model not create a lot of disparities and differences among candidates? I am afraid that some guarantors might be considered more solvent and that loans would be more readily granted to those individuals. Conversely, I am afraid that the banks might consider other guarantors less solvent. What can you tell us on that topic?
12:50 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
I believe that what I have proposed would improve the situation. However, I do not believe it would permanently solve the problem.
As I told you earlier, the federal act is exemplary and well thought of outside Canada. I would say it levels the playing field. An act cannot guarantee perfectly equal chances, but I believe the system I am proposing would appreciably improve the situation. That is my impression.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Sure. It's more of an observation than a question. I'm following up with what Mr. Williamson was saying.
I find your proposals intriguing, and for the large part very well thought out. I sense that this is a situation that may never happen, but I think the potential is there, similar to what John was saying.
In a leadership contest, a frivolous candidate who is normally unable to qualify for a bank loan based on his own set of assets could go to a financial institution and say, “I want $50,000 to enter the race here, and don't worry about it. I know I'm penniless, but the party will pick it up. They have $10 million in the bank. They're going to backstop me.” I think that potentially has some danger to it.
I don't know if you want to comment on that, but it's something I certainly want to think about.
12:50 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
That candidate could not go and get $50,000 unless the EDA had agreed to the amount.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
For leadership, the party would have set that limit and it would have to live with it. It has to set the rules. It's not a perfect solution. I don't live in a perfect world.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
You're sucking up to everybody today, Chair.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
This chair is just trying to make friends today.
Mr. Armstrong, I see your hand up at the last minute. If you have a very short question, I'll allow it.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
It's just on that last point. Under that system, then, for the leadership, what would stop people who are trying to cause trouble and derail the party from having a whole bunch of people from their party try to register as leadership contenders for the other party, trying to cost money for that party?
I'm not saying that would happen and I know this is far-fetched, but stranger things have happened in politics, you know. There's nothing, I don't think, to protect the party from having these frivolous candidates, or actual candidates, coming in from other parties and trying to cause trouble by being financed by that party. Do you have any comments on that?
12:50 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
The only comment I have is what I said previously. The party establishes the criteria by which you're admitted into the contestant ranks. It's a matter of providing fairness in establishing those criteria, but not perfect access.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
They would have to react to this rule and set criteria based on knowing this could happen.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
This is just to say that whatever change you make, there will be unintended consequences. The simpler the system, the fewer the unintended consequences, but as Marshall McLuhan also said, it will provide you with a serendipity of opportunities.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you very much.
We will end there.
The meeting is adjourned.