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.
12:45 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
I'm willing to see what five days gives us in terms of a system. I'm willing to see what that gives us. It's a lot better than what exists.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
What you'd say is five days, though after that five days, there could be no additions.
12:50 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
Yes. Making it five days means that people should have a very definite idea about who will be attending. I don't mean the attendees; I mean which functionaries, which ministers, or which party leaders or whoever. That would be part of the notice. Then the media would perk up and say that the finance minister or someone else is going to be there, and that would make people twig.
With respect to the $199 and the $1,350, that's the kind of finagling that will get caught because of the reporting requirements regarding money. If it were to be instantaneous or quasi-instantaneous, as I've said, then it would be caught automatically and immediately. It'll be caught over time now, and obviously the price paid will be after the fact, which is not desirable. I don't know if there's a solution.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
But I don't think there would be anything illegal about it, right? It wouldn't be prevented. We would know certainly that it's the case if someone did the work to do the linkage, but there's nothing that could be done right now to prevent someone. This law wouldn't prevent that. It would still be lawful.
12:50 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
I'm agreeing with you, and I'm also saying I don't know what the solution is.
12:50 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
I found a solution to the first one, but I didn't find a solution to the second one.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I appreciate that, and if you do happen to think of something at a later date, say some night you're not able to sleep or something, we'd be happy to hear it. Send us a—
12:50 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
I'll give you a call the moment I'm not able to sleep. Have I got that right?
12:50 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
You know what? Odds are that would probably be the case for me, too.
Thank you.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much.
You said that, to your mind, you weren't going to make any friends if the appropriate penalty for the party was double the contribution, but you also questioned whether the appropriate penalty on summary conviction for the individual should be higher than $1,000. Is there an appropriate penalty that you have in mind?
12:50 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
Yes, I'm thinking $5,000 for an individual candidate, something that makes the person think that there is a price for breaking the law. I don't think $1,000 quite does it, frankly. I think $5,000 starts people thinking, especially if they also have to remit double the amount of money that comes from the association, but something should be tied to the individual as well.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
The $5,000 is. I don't remember them all, by the way, but I do remember that $5,000 for certain infractions.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
You mentioned that you had an opportunity to look through the technical changes, and you expressed some concerns about how they came about. In terms of the changes themselves, are you supportive of them? Do they seem reasonable to you? What are your thoughts on those changes?
12:50 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
I proposed additions to those changes, but those changes are okay, yes.
Insofar as technical amendments are concerned, I really left those up to Stéphane Perrault to handle, because I really don't have the staff to go through all of this in detail.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
With regard to donations being made available instantaneously or in a very rapid turnaround, in my experience in a campaign, when you have a limited window—and I guess in most campaigns—it'll be about $100,000 per riding depending on the size of the riding, you can have only so many paid staff. My financial agent had a full-time job and he came when he could.
A lot of people still like to donate by cheque and don't trust the Internet, so cheques pile up and may get deposited only every few days or so. Maybe 10 years from now everyone will be donating online, and it will become easier, but in the current climate, especially if you have a Liberal candidate in rural Alberta who may have a very small organization or similarly a Conservative candidate in downtown Toronto, it's not equal. I don't know how we can get that quick turnaround, especially at the local level, in terms of donating.
12:50 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
Let's start with the parties, and then see how far and how fast we want to progress to individual candidacies. There's no reason why any party represented in the House of Commons shouldn't be under the obligation to do that.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you again, Mr. Kingsley, for joining us.
I have just a couple of brief questions, so I probably won't use my full five minutes. I do want to go back very briefly to the 18-year-old limit for reporting of names, because that was something that jumped out at me as well when the minister was here, and she didn't actually address it. I suppose I probably made a bit of a joke at the time, saying it should be the Joe Volpe rule, and so she may have glanced over the issue. I would appreciate your comments on the name of an attendee, who may be 16 or 17 years old, at an event being reported. I think it does generally make sense. I accept Ms. Tassi's comment about a three-year-old. I have a three-year-old and a one-year-old, and they join me at most community events because that's what we do as a family. However, I do think the distinction between a 17-year-old and a newborn or a child should be made.
Is that something you might be able to come to the committee with something in writing on, maybe some wording that could amend legislation?
12:55 p.m.
Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual
I'll take it under consideration and get in touch with the chair.
