Evidence of meeting #73 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 ontario.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Eric Montigny  Professor, Department of Political Science, Université Laval, As an Individual
Leslie Seidle  Research Director, Institute for Research on Public Policy, As an Individual
Mary Dawson  Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Karen Shepherd  Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying
Greg Essensa  Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Ontario

12:55 p.m.

Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying

Karen Shepherd

I'm not regulating the political activities. I'm regulating whether.... As per the lobbyist code of conduct, which has a rule for lobbyists, as I said it in my opening remarks, I would be encouraging lobbyists to always ask themselves whether performing political activities will create a sense of obligation if they later lobby a particular individual.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Okay. I know the answer to this question, but I want the answer on the record. Under media questioning, Andrew Scheer stated that, unlike the Prime Minister, he's not a public office holder. I would just like you to confirm today that all MPs, including Mr. Scheer, are designated public office holders. Can you confirm that?

12:55 p.m.

Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying

Karen Shepherd

Every elected official in both Houses of Parliament is a public office holder.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Thank you.

12:55 p.m.

Commissioner of Lobbying, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying

Karen Shepherd

In fact, they're designated public office holders.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Thank you.

Ms. Dawson, you have a great amount of experience in this area. I'm wondering about the $200 amount, anything over $200. We know we've done that so it lines up with respect to disclosing under the Canada Elections Act, but do you think that the just over $200 amount is the right amount for Bill C-50? Do you think we got that amount right in terms of the requirement?

12:55 p.m.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Mary Dawson

Again, you know, it's a standard amount that's used. You may or may not have noticed in the code that we have the gift reporting, for example, down from $500 to $200. It seems to be a standard amount that's quite broadly accepted.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

So you're satisfied with that.

With respect to transparency, you have said that you believe that this will help increase transparency and will also assist you with respect to your overseeing and implementing the Conflict of Interest Act. Then you also said that it would be helpful now so that when a conflict of interest allegation comes up, you'd now, through this legislation, have the ability to go back and access lists.

What would you do if you didn't have that list? What sort of groundwork would you have to do if the list were not there for you?

12:55 p.m.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Mary Dawson

I would check the lobbying registry. The group that I look after is a lot broader than lobbying. They are all stakeholders. You don't have to be lobbyists to be caught by these kinds of rules. I would just do what I could to find out. I use whatever is available. The people who register under my act, the people who are disclosing information, disclose lots of information to me, too, but sometimes I won't know about something.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

I don't think it's an understatement to say that this legislation would help you significantly in terms of the research that you would have to do, because you'd have one place where you could go to find out who was there, and that would help you tremendously in terms of your investigation and the resources that you currently have to use to do that due diligence. Is that correct?

12:55 p.m.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Mary Dawson

Yes, and I wouldn't have access in some cases. I wouldn't be able to find a way of finding out. It would be a standard tool that we would use.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Thank you.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you for coming. We know you both have great experience. We also appreciate your public service for the last many years. I think it's been exemplary. We'll just suspend for a couple of minutes while our next witness comes.

1 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Once again, welcome back to the 73rd meeting of the Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs on our study of Bill C-50, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing).

We are pleased to have with us Greg Essensa, Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario.

Thank you for being here. You are probably our witness in most demand, so we are delighted that we could finally get you here. There are lots of questions about the good work that's been done in Ontario. I think we're all looking forward to hearing from you. You have some time for opening comments, if you'd like, and then we'll go around to some questions.

1 p.m.

Greg Essensa Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Ontario

I would like to begin by thanking the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for inviting me to provide my observations on Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with respect to political financing. I welcome the chance to offer my insights and advice on the electoral process to you. When I provide comments to a committee of the House of Commons, I am very aware that I am addressing Canada's lawmakers.

Today, I would like to briefly address these topics: one, creating a fair and level playing field; two, Ontario's election finance system; and three, the provisions of this bill.

The first observation I'd like to make is on the importance of maintaining a fair and level playing field. All political actors require financial resources, and money is an essential element in politics. Chief electoral officers of Canada, from the past and present, speak of the special role parties play in the democratic process. They also speak of the need to strike the right balance in creating a funding formula that sustains parties but does not unfairly enrich them or, conversely, leave them beholden to any one contribution source.

The concept of the level playing field is central to our democracy. It is also a unifying principle of election administration; it ties together the voting process and the campaign process. This is how it ties them together. Election outcomes are supposed to reflect the genuine will of the people. Political finance rules are supposed to ensure that parties have equal opportunity to raise and spend funds to advance their message and win votes. Electoral outcomes should not be distorted because of unequal opportunities to influence the electorate.

Academics and judges have written about this at length. As an election administrator, I see that it boils down to one fundamental proposition: All who enter the electoral arena should be treated equally. The debate, then, becomes what rules are rational, necessary, and practical to have in place. In other words, we need to strike the right balance between transparency and participation in the electoral process.

I would now like to provide some insight into Ontario's election finance regime.

Last year, while Ontario was undergoing significant electoral reform, I was asked and agreed to serve as an adviser to the Standing Committee on General Government. As the Chief Electoral Officer, I am an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly. My mandate includes overseeing the registration and financial reporting requirements of all parties and candidates, not just those represented in the Legislative Assembly. You might say that I am the referee, and I referee the rules of the political game in provincial elections. I saw my role as helping ensure there was a level playing field on which all compete.

Ontario took an extensive process in consulting the public. Throughout my time as an adviser, I had the opportunity to travel the province and listen to deputants speak about the relationship between money and politics. I also appeared three times in front of the committee to provide my thoughts on the provisions in the bill.

In following the debate on the bill prior to the consultation process, it was evident that there was a strong desire to reform campaign finances and to put an end to what was termed “cash for access”. Ontario made significant reforms to contribution limits.

The first was a ban on corporate and trade union donations. Only individuals who are residents of Ontario can now make contributions to political parties, constituency associations, candidate campaigns, leadership contestants, and nomination contestants.

The second significant change was the amount an individual could contribute annually to political parties. Prior to the amendments, individuals could contribute up to $9,975 annually, and up to an additional $9,975 for each campaign period. This meant that, in a year when we had two by-elections, contributors were able to contribute up to $29,925 to a party.

Under the bill now, the contribution limit is $1,200 annually to a political party, $1,200 annually to constituency associations and nomination contestants, and $1,200 annually to a leadership contestant, totalling an annual contribution limit of $3,600. No extra amount over the annual limit is allowed, regardless of the number of campaigns.

The next area I would like to address is annual allowances.

Earlier in my remarks, I observed the need to strike the right balance in creating a funding formula that sustains parties but does not unfairly enrich them or leave them beholden to any one contribution source. To that end, Ontario introduced a unique system by providing quarterly allowances to support the activities of political parties and constituency associations. Funding formulas have been developed to determine how much each party or constituency association receives.

While I strongly believe that private and public funding support to political parties is essential, I do not advocate for one model over another, but believe that a funding formula that balances public and private funding is an important component of our democratic system.

Another significant amendment was to fundraising events themselves. Similar to the provisions in Bill C-50, Ontario introduced similar reporting requirements for fundraising events. Parties are also required to inform the public on their website at least seven days in advance that a fundraising event is being held.

Attendance at fundraising events, though, has been significantly reformed in Ontario. Many political actors are now prohibited from attending fundraising events. These range from leaders of registered parties, MPPs, to staff members in the leader's office. As you can see, Ontario has taken a strong approach to amending the election finance system.

What I will put forward for the consideration of this committee, when you are reviewing and amending provisions related to election finance laws, concerns the risk of unintended consequences. Let me give you an example.

While Ontario was amending its fundraising requirements, prohibiting party leaders, MPPs, and nomination contestants from attending fundraising events, they did not make any exceptions for events such as annual general meetings, policy conferences, and similar events. I believe the new fundraising requirements were originally intended to restrict attendance at large fundraising dinners and other such events. However, because of the wording of the act, I believe an unintended consequence of the attendance restrictions applied to party meetings like annual general meetings, for which delegate fees included a contribution portion. I thus wrote to all three party leaders recommending that the Election Finances Act be amended at the earliest opportunity to specifically exempt such events.

I do not believe the attendance provisions were meant to restrict leaders and MPPs from attending events where party policy and party platforms were being debated and decided upon. Generally, I was supportive of most of these changes and found this level of reform appropriate.

I will now turn my attention to the provisions of Bill C-50. In reviewing the provisions of this bill and other bills related to elections, I always ask myself whether the changes protect the integrity of the electoral process, preserves fairness, and promotes transparency.

I have reviewed this bill closely and offer the following observations. The provisions in Bill C-50 are not as strict as those of Ontario's current election finance system. Yet, there are many positive aspects of this bill. I do believe this bill achieves greater transparency by making fundraising events public and adding requirements to report to the Chief Electoral Officer.

I would suggest that the committee, in deliberating these provisions, apply the principle of consistency when regulating political actors. The way the legislation is written, many of these fundraising provisions apply only to leaders, interim leaders, or leadership contestants. I believe it would be an oversight to not give consideration to, for example, members of Parliament or high-ranking political staffers, such as chiefs of staff, when it comes to attendance at fundraising events. Many of them have a level of influence that is important to recognize. Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley also raised this when he presented to you on this bill, and I concur with his rationale.

As the committee continues to debate this legislation and additional changes to election finances, I once again remind you to closely examine all provisions of the bill to ensure that unintended consequences do not arise.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for inviting me to speak and offer my perspectives as Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario. I applaud the work this committee is doing on electoral reform and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you.

We'll go for the first round to Ms. Tassi.

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Thank you for your presentation and for being here today. We look forward to the responses that you're going to give us and the insights, because you come with a great background and experience, having gone through this in Ontario.

I like how you talked about making sure there's a level playing field and you referred to yourself as a referee, because I think that's appropriate. The key, really, is the balance or the transparency and participation. Do you think Bill C-50 gets it right in that regard?

1:10 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Ontario

Greg Essensa

I think there are many elements of the bill and provisions that provide much greater transparency, which I'm very supportive of. Having events being publicized five days in advance, I think, provides greater transparency. Reporting who has attended those events to the Chief Electoral Officer and having that information publicized, again promotes greater transparency.

The one area that I would suggest for consideration to enhance the bill would be to provide those same requirements during the electoral event period. That is when Canadians are truly turning their minds toward who they are wishing to choose as their elected representative. I think that for true transparency in the electoral system and our democracy, those types of events during the electoral process should be promoted as well and identified to Elections Canada so it can make the events transparent with regard to when they occurred and who attended.

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

You're not the first to say that. I note that point with interest.

I suppose when you're looking at a minister, for example, as was mentioned in the previous testimony that was given, essentially they're still in that office although we're in an election. I think the idea there is that in fact they're not carrying out that work. That's why during that period it's suspended. However, we will take note of that input and evidence.

From what I understand, you're going so far as to say that you believe Ontario got it right in applying it to all MPs. Are you suggesting, then, that consideration be given to it being not only fundraising events that have ministers but also fundraising events that hit the $200 mark, or over $200, with any MP? Am I hearing that correctly?

1:10 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Ontario

Greg Essensa

That would be my testimony, my recommendation. I would base this on some statistical facts that I brought for the committee's consideration.

We have just completed the third quarter of 2017, and we've now done a review of the first three quarters of 2016 versus 2017 from a fundraising perspective. In quarter one, the political parties in the House were down 80% from 2016 to 2017. In quarter two, they were down 30%. In quarter three, they were up 18%. Clearly there is a trend that the political parties, in the machinations of how the political operatives are working, have found a way to reform their fundraising tactics and events such that they still enrich them to the same degree. Yes, it has taken some time. It has taken the first two quarters. However, they certainly now are above or on par with where they were for the third quarter of 2016.

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

It's not really a matter of trying to circumvent the rules or to work a way around the rules so that you get back to a certain level. Really what we're trying to achieve here is having things open and transparent, so if you are at an event and you have access to someone who's in a position, such as a minister, that is recorded.

You don't think it's going beyond. You think it is actually....

My concern is not so much that the end game is that MPs are able to figure out how to get back to those levels. My goal would be what is more appropriate in striking the balance to ensure that you have transparency and that you have participation, not that you're creating work to go beyond where you need to be going.

1:15 p.m.

Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Ontario

Greg Essensa

From my perspective, Ontario has created the right balance. We need to go through a complete electoral cycle to do a complete assessment of that, but I sat on the committee and travelled the province and listened to the concerns that Ontarians raised throughout the deliberations, and there was a greater than average number of deputants who came forward with great concerns about cash for access and were looking for the political body to address those concerns.

We still need to do some further research. After the 2018 electoral cycle and going through one cycle with these reforms, there will be an opportunity for me to report back to the legislative assembly on any other recommendations I might see, based on the outcome of the last three years.

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

You have just under two minutes.

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Okay. I'll pass the floor to Ms. Sahota.