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

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Mr. Reid for a seven-minute round.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Thank you.

That's actually an interesting suggestion. The minister has invited us to come back to her with suggested amendments, and perhaps the double number might be one we'd put in there, so thank you for that.

You talk about the importance of a deterrent actually having a deterrent effect. Politics being what it is, money that is available to me prior to the writ is more valuable than money that I have to pay back in some form of penalty after the writ, for reasons that are obvious. I can't spend money I don't have. When it's a fundraiser taking place now, a couple of years before a writ, presumably if we are in some respect non-compliant, if it's a fundraiser for me and I'm present, and I'm the leader of a party, and all those things that are required, and then it turns out that we've been in violation of the statute, we'd pay back a penalty that, as you suggest, is double the amount. That's presumably the process.

That's assuming the process is not very slow and that it all occurs between now and writ 2019. However, for an event in the election writ period, it would be a different story. There are other transgressions that occur during writ periods. There must be some other way of dealing with them. I'd be interested in your thoughts on how to deal with that.

12:25 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

During an election, the commissioner can investigate a matter that is ongoing when it's brought to his or her attention and can then obtain a cease and desist order against the people who are committing it on the basis that if they stop doing it right now, we will not be proceeding against them. This happens during an election. You can also have a chief electoral officer say that, but without having the right to say, “I will not be doing anything further.”

You can also do something else, which has not been prevalent. I can't remember it happening. You can go to court and obtain an injunction if you're the commissioner. That has not happened very often.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

I have some experience with that. My second nomination in 2004 was halted due to an injunction from somebody who felt that he had been wrongly excluded from being able to participate in the nominations. We had to reschedule it after a court had a chance to look at the details of the case, and it decided that his case was not valid, so I know how that works. The bigger problem was that we had to figure out whether it was actually a new contest or the same contest continuing, for expenditure reasons. That was a lively story, which you may recall from the recesses of your memory. You were the CEO at the time.

What strikes me about what you suggested about cease and desist orders, or indeed any action, is that the Chief Electoral Officer can act only if the Chief Electoral Officer is actually aware of what's happening. The after-the-fact reporting mechanism this statute contemplates for writ period events would seem to preclude that possibility. Effectively, public oversight would be blind during that period and until after the electoral event was actually over.

12:25 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

I agree. That's what I was saying. This whole bill raises the question of the timeliness of all reporting of all contributions during the campaign.

One could say, with respect to political parties that have representation in the House, that this applies; for others, because they don't have the same resource base, perhaps it does not. There can be a cut-off. We're dealing with very sophisticated computer systems now. You can transmit this stuff so instantaneously, it's amazing that we're not doing it now, frankly, even for candidates of parties that are represented in the House.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Essentially, it would be fairly easy, then, to put an amendment into the bill that would remove the exclusion for writ periods.

12:30 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

I don't know how easy it would be politically, but I leave that up to you. Technically, yes, it would be an amendment to the statute.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Okay.

You had an interesting way of phrasing this. In the very beginning of your remarks, you described this as being the “more timely” disclosure of information, which suggests to me that you are of the view that most of this information is available anyway. Is that what you were trying to get at, or were you trying to get at something else?

12:30 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

I was trying to get at something else, which is the fact that we will now know earlier who's participating in those fundraisers than we knew previously from a quarterly report or, during an election, six months after, or, if it was a candidate, four months after. That's when we would find out. It's going to be more timely under this statute, but it will not be as timely as I think it should be, which is what I was alluding to.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Thank you very much.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you.

I don't know if the committee wants to break into song first, but it will be Mr. Christopherson's last input at this time.

[Members sang Happy Birthday]

12:30 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Oh, I thought I was being fired.

Thank you very much, colleagues. That's very generous of you. I just wish they didn't come around so quickly.

Thank you very much, Mr. Kingsley. It's good to see you again. It's been quite a while now. I want to underscore not the contribution you made when you were in the position but the fact that you have consistently, since then, gone out of your way to bring your expertise here. You continue to be an amazing public servant. We appreciate everything you've done. Thank you so much.

12:30 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

Thank you very much.

12:30 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

I want to start off, if I can, following up on what Mr. Reid said, which I thought was a very poignant point, about how it means a lot more to him as a candidate, and therefore to all of us, to get the money sooner rather than later.

I hate to do this to you, but maybe I'll just take advantage of it being my birthday, and you'll allow me a little latitude.

I want to tell you a joke. It actually belongs—to give attribution—to Bud Wildman, who, as any of you would know, was a former Ontario cabinet minister with a huge personality, an amazing guy.

He tells this story—I'll do the accent but I can't do it justice; he did a much better job—about Huey Long back in, I think, the 1920s or 1930s, give or take a couple of decades. He was a governor, and ethics wasn't exactly his long suit. The story goes, or at least the joke goes, that Huey was meeting with a whole lot of his big contributors and he said to them, basically, you can give me a lotta money right now and get a nice big piece of the pie, or you can give me the money a little closer to the election and get a smaller piece of the pie, or you can give me the money after the election and get good government. I like that joke. I've always liked that joke.

I can't do it justice, Bud, but there you are; you live in infamy through your jokes.

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

That's actually a remarkable southern accent. That's a Louisiana accent. Well done.

12:30 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Thank you. You're one of my more learned colleagues, so I take that as high praise. Thank you.

To get a little more serious here, you were asked a question by a government member as to whether or not this provided any increase to transparency, and you answered that it does. My question to you is, does it do it sufficiently?

12:30 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

I would have to say that it stands on its own right now. I've indicated to you what I think could be areas for improvement so that transparency would be enhanced, and I've indicated the exception rules. I've indicted what is happening. Who are these people who can organize these events? They're not named; it says individuals and entities, so what are we talking about? That one's not clear to me, so all these things need to be clarified so that we have a clear idea and Canadians can then make up their own minds about what's going on.

12:35 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Thank you.

You're the second one to raise this issue of not just ministers and decision-makers but also their staff being there. As a former Ontario cabinet minister, I can tell you that the influence of the chief of staff and the senior policy people you mentioned is huge.

Most ministers are not experts in every area that they're making decisions on, and they rely on advice: professional advice, technical advice, and political advice. At the end of the day, often the last meeting you have is with your own personal staff as you're making a final determination. I just wonder if there were any other titles or anything else that you want to expand on, because the question has come up before—and it's a legitimate issue, I think—as to whether t you can have effective lobbying by only meeting with the minister.

I would say, in terms of the impact of meeting directly with the minister versus with the staffer, that you might even get more attention out of the staffer, because most politicians are thinking 16 different things at once, especially if they're at an event and looking here and there, whereas the staffer tends to be more focused. I think it's a really important area that's being overlooked, and any further expansion of your thoughts would be helpful, sir.

12:35 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

It may also be helpful to review the statute on lobbying, and see what it says about these office-holders. I can't remember offhand, but they may delineate office-holders for whom reports must be provided by people who have access to them. That may be helpful as well.

I was also thinking of executive assistants, and I'm not thinking only of ministers. I'm thinking of leaders of parties as well. It may be that the chief finance critic of a party is also someone whose staff has importance. It may seem as though that goes a long way, but then it's much easier if you make it such that all these things have to be reported anyway, in an exceedingly timely fashion, within a day or two and shared automatically from one web to another. Then the Chief Electoral Officer wouldn't have to go look at the Conservative Party website to find out if an event was held; he or she would automatically be given that information and could act accordingly—immediately—to ensure that people were following the law.

12:35 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

We've had that suggestion too. That's something else we should look at.

In my final minute, I'll just add my voice on the idea of increasing the fine. I suspect there may be room where we can find common ground. You're right. In terms of trying to influence politics, if you're playing with this amount of money and you skew the rules, especially deliberately, 1,000 bucks in that game is the price of doing business; it's not a deterrent.

I'll just end by saying thank you again, sir. It's always good to see you. I hope you're enjoying your well-deserved retirement.

12:35 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

I am very much so. That's why I'm here.

12:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you. I'm sure Mr. Christopherson voices the sentiments of all the committee for your great public service over your career and for your retirement.

We'll now go to Mr. Graham for seven minutes.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Kingsley, it's a pleasure to be speaking with a francophone witness. It doesn't happen often here, so this gives me a chance to speak French.

I have followed you since you became Chief Electoral Officer, when I was nine years old. You've been a part of my political life since the very beginning, so I thank you for that.

12:35 p.m.

Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

That's deeply touching. Thank you very much.