Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

There are a couple more. There's BQ, and there's IND, independent, but yes.

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

G does not mean Green. IND, independent, means only Mr. Rathgeber, and it does not mean anything the Green Party submitted. Is that correct?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Until I form a majority government, G will just mean Conservative.

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

Fair enough, well, there's only another year and a half.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Next would be NDP-1.

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

It's NDP-1, which will be followed by NDP-2. One is on the definition of “leadership campaign expense”. This is the one we're dealing with. The one on the definition of “nomination campaign expense” is of the same ilk.

The Chief Electoral Officer in the table of amendments that he provided as recommendations gave fairly detailed reasons why there's a problem in the definitions of leadership and nomination campaign expenses in Bill C-23. He explained that definitions of leadership and nomination campaign expenses are not amended, but at the moment these definitions include only expenses incurred during the contest proper, and none of those incurred before the formal start of the contest or after its conclusion. As well, they don't include the use of non-monetary contributions, like gifts or goods or services.

Without going into more detail about the extra reasoning he gave, this amendment is an attempt to follow his recommendation, which was to modify the definition of “leadership campaign expense” in the definition section so that it would read, “'Leadership campaign expense' means an expense reasonably incurred by or on behalf of” and then we would insert, “leadership contestant related to a leadership contest, including a personal expense as defined in section 478, as well as any non-monetary contribution.”

If everybody's had a chance to look at it, I won't need to say anything more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Independent amendments are deemed moved, but you need to move yours each time you come.

So, would you move your amendment.

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

It's what I just said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Reid.

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

Looking at this, and perhaps I misunderstand it, but with the phrase “any non-monetary contribution” my instinct is to think that effectively the dollar value of people's voluntary labour would count and might add a significant amount of complexity. Indeed, it might put all kinds of people into non-compliance, especially large, volunteer-based campaigns.

I went through that process myself when the Stephen Harper campaign, which was run on small contributions and many volunteer hours, was up against the Belinda Stronach campaign, a giant machine funded by a few giant contributions and very few volunteers.

I have the concern that we would unintentionally slant the playing field towards those big money candidates. In particular, because it's so hard to keep track of these volunteer hours, it would put the people focusing on a volunteer and populace campaign into perpetual non-compliance with what seems to me to be the least significant part of the cost compliance law. Large dollar contributions are potentially the source of influence and small-scale volunteer efforts are not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Very good.

Mr. Simms, go ahead.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Are we proposing an amendment to an amendment, I suppose you would call it, about the fact it doesn't include...? It seems to me it has never been obvious.... I mean, volunteer is volunteer hours.

In the 10 years I've been here, I can't think of anywhere it has been included in some kind of contribution mechanism. I think, obviously, they are looking at tangible goods as being part of the non-monetary contribution, which is why we proposed the same thing based on what was given to us by Elections Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Scott.

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

I think it has already been—

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

I was going to respond to Mr. Simms first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

If you would like to do that, and then we'll go this way. It may help. Go ahead.

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

Elections Canada has taken the approach when you're dealing with work that if the person is volunteering at something for which they have no professional or career-based connection.... For example, I'm an accountant, and if I come in and hammer signs into the ground, it's not a problem. However, if I'm a bookkeeper and I come in and help keep the books in a campaign, that's what I'm specialized in, and that is an issue. Sorting that out and being in compliance with it has always been, in my experience, considerably difficult even within the universe of my own very small election campaigns.

The way this is written, with very expansive language, would capture at least that problem and perhaps beyond, but at least that problem. Whereas, having bookkeepers come in and do bookkeeping, which is what they are competent at, which is important given the importance of competent bookkeeping in a campaign, leads to an unnecessary problem. I think we want to keep money out of these campaigns as best we can but not volunteer labour.

That's how I would respond to your concern, Mr. Simms.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Simms and then Mr. Scott. You're going to get a chance on that. You're listed like I am.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

To clarify, you're saying that those who have a certain expertise or who carry on normal business in the way they make a living, if they provide that service to a campaign, then that's considered part of this non-monetary contribution.

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

I don't think it's the expertise per se, but I think if you have done it professionally, or it's your work, then it becomes an issue. A sign painter who paints a sign was an example that was offered once.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Yes, I understand what you're saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid, go ahead.

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

I’m done.