Evidence of meeting #72 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was donations.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Duff Conacher  Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
Jean-Pierre Kingsley  Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

During your opening remarks, you said that money and politics was a tough topic to discuss. There is no doubt about that.

What alternatives to money in politics do you see? Do you see any?

12:35 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

I see not a one, and that's why I have always preferred reasonable rules when it comes to political financing.

I was never a fan of lowering the contribution limit to $100. I don't think that's reasonable. Some balance and a certain amount of public support are necessary. Achieving total financing fairness is impossible. Some parties, and even candidates, will always receive more support than others. That's the nature of the beast.

The limit is not what needs changing. Instead, what we need to do is set the limit at a level that prevents excessive financing. That was a hugely important consideration in the Canada Elections Act when very significant measures were taken to impose these limits on spending and contributions, and do away with corporate, union, and association contributions. Today, only individuals, in other words, Canadians, can make a financial contribution to a party during an election. That's a crucial piece of our legislation.

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

When you took office in 1990, where did Canada's election financing legislation stand?

12:40 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

There wasn't any.

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

There weren't any limits or rules?

12:40 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

No. Some banks would donate $50,000 or $60,000. It depended on the party. If the party was in power, it would receive $50,000, and the opposition party would get $30,000. Do you see what I mean? They would play both sides and make sure to provide at least some support. All of that ended in about 2004.

12:40 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Not to everyone; to everyone they thought they were going to get into power.

12:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

12:40 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

I'm not good at that.

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

It was per vote subsidies.

You were in power at that time.

It's a qualifier.

No doubt, you had numerous conversations with other governments, internationally speaking.

Canada is often said to have an excellent system. Are there other countries with models we should follow?

12:40 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Yes. I can give you an example of one country that is important to us: Great Britain.

We shouldn't copy everything Great Britain does, because its contribution limit is, in fact, excessive. However, in Great Britain, airtime during election campaigns is free for all parties. That means parties can reduce their spending by 50% to 60% during a campaign, considering how much they currently spend on airtime. The need to fundraise diminishes accordingly.

That's one thing that comes to mind from a financing standpoint, but it's just about the only measure in Great Britain that we should endeavour to replicate.

Other countries do it as well. We don't feel as close to them culturally speaking, though, so their experience may not seem as relevant to our situation. I opted to use Great Britain as an example because it would be hard to argue that it isn't comparable to Canada.

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

It seems to me that Great Britain's spending limit is in effect between elections, not just during the election period.

12:40 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

It applies broadly and is a measure that the federal government should consider. Canada adopted fixed election date legislation, but thus far, adherence to the legislation has generally been the exception, rather than the rule. That has had a warping effect on political financing. Third parties can actually go right up until the day the election is called. We saw the result of that during the last election: it created a system that many felt was wrong.

I think Canada should consider the fixed date elections measure and decide that the election period covers the six months leading up to the election; in other words, all the financing provisions would apply retroactively for a period of six months prior to the election being called. The limit would apply to that period, and third parties would have to register from that point on.

I've never been in favour of the legislation because it goes against what our parliamentary system is meant to be about. Nevertheless, since it does exist, we should make sure that, in terms of financing, the measures around spending limits and the rules governing third parties are still meaningful.

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

That's interesting.

I'm going to switch gears now.

You talked about the people to whom Bill C-50 should apply: ministers' agents, opposition leaders, and third parties. Who are all the people you think the bill should apply to?

12:40 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

The bill should apply to anyone who helps organize or finance a fundraising event for a candidate or party.

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Who would have to be invited to the event in order for it to be subject to Bill C-50?

12:40 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Forgive me, but I didn't understand the question.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Currently, it applies to ministers, opposition leaders, and third parties. Is that sufficient?

12:45 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Now I see what you're getting at.

I think that could work to start. Then we could see how things go. I wouldn't want to take it too far right off the bat.

I see the Canada Elections Act as a dynamic statute. We need to exercise care before changing the financing provisions. We shouldn't move too far towards one extreme because it could create distortions. We've created something that holds up quite well, comparatively speaking, and is more or less equivalent.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

You brought up adequate financial penalties. You said that $1,000 was too low and that the amount should be doubled.

From your experience as Chief Electoral Officer, which penalties would you say worked and which ones had no effect?

12:45 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

That's a tough question to answer.

There was a very significant bill dealing with penalties because they had become so ridiculous that people knew they were useless. The penalties meant nothing.

I simply said that the penalties should be severe and equivalent to what used to apply when other provisions of the Canada Elections Act were violated, under the version passed in 2006, if I'm not mistaken.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you, Mr. Graham.

Now we'll go to a five-minute round, and we'll start with Mr. Richards.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here.

I don't know if you've been following any of the other meetings that we've held on this topic. In questioning, my colleague Mr. Nater discovered a couple of things that would be considered fairly large loopholes—ones you could drive a bus through, essentially. I just want to run the two scenarios by you and get your thoughts on them, as well as—if the committee feels it appropriate to try to find ways to amend the legislation to fix those lapses—how we might approach those. You'd be able to provide some advice on that, I'm sure.

The two scenarios he identified were as follows. The first is in relation to the notice period. It's a five-day period, but this loophole was identified. Let's say the Prime Minister was going to be attending a function and didn't seem to know he would be there until maybe an hour or two beforehand, and that change was suddenly made. That takes away that notice to the public, but it would still comply with the law because after the five-day period it could be amended without any real consequence, I guess. What could we do about that?

The other scenario is this idea of the $200 limit. What would stop the Prime Minister from attending an event where the ticket price was $199 and then later on, at the event, everyone who attended just happened to give another $1,351, so they ended up giving the maximum contribution? They were not required to do that to attend the event, but they all somehow just happened to do it.

I suppose there is a possibility you could actually mix those two things, and it would be even more of a loophole.

I want to hear your thoughts on whether you see those things being problematic, and if we were looking to try to fix those loopholes, what we would do to fix them.

12:45 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

With respect to the first one—and this is after a few months of reflection—the notice should indicate who the officials are who will be in attendance and whether the Prime Minister will be there. If not, if the head of a party or the minister's name is not on the notice, then they cannot attend.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

It's as simple as that. There couldn't be a last-minute change. It would just be that if they're not on there at a certain point in time.... Is five days reasonable, or do you think it should be longer than five days?