Procedure and House Affairs committee  I have no particular comment. This may indeed be something, I would suspect, a CEO would do in any case.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I don't know for certain, but I would imagine that this may be something that the CEO would do in any event, as a matter of procedural fairness, as you said.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, Mr. Chair, if I may. I would just point out that there may be a conflict between this provision and the one that was previously adopted by the committee in the version of amendment CPC-2, which actually specifies the amounts of guarantees that can be made in any one year, t

Procedure and House Affairs committee  To comment along the lines of the question I was asked earlier, as to whether I was actually recommending something, in this case I'd like to be clear that we're just trying to clarify the language. I would also point out that we're dealing with the second half of this particul

Procedure and House Affairs committee  There may indeed be a problem with the last point that you pointed out in terms of polling day. A polling day is not applicable in all situations.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  For a leadership contest, for example, there is no polling day per se. For loans that were made pursuant to a leadership contest, there wouldn't be a time period that would come into force with this provision as it is. It would require some other amendments to make this actually

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Perhaps for further clarity, there was some mention made that if a rate was set below that, the difference would be treated as a contribution. That is not the case. It's simply that the loan would be illegal, and it would be subject to the offence provisions.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I didn't say it would be against it; I said it would be a change to the existing law.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  That's correct.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It was no such comment.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  In effect, this is a consequential amendment to a subsequent amendment, which appears later. The principle is established later on, and this would be a consequential amendment to that. It does come earlier in the package, though, but it relates to transparency provisions, so what

Procedure and House Affairs committee  That's right.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  This would have the effect of increasing, in these limited circumstances, the limits that were put in place via Bill C-2.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I'm Dan McDougall, director of operations with legislation and House planning at the Privy Council Office.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It would read, “For the purposes of paragraph 2(b)” rather than “subsection”.