Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue No. 46 - Evidence - June 6, 2018
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 6, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), met this day at 4:25 p.m. to continue its study of the bill.
Senator Serge Joyal (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome. It is my pleasure this afternoon to welcome, from the Privy Council Office, Jean-François Morin, Senior Policy Advisor, and Riri Shen, Director of Operations. Good afternoon to both of you.
[English]
Honourable senators will know that we are studying Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing).
I understand that the Minister of Democratic Institutions, the Honourable Karina Gould, will join us later this afternoon. She is caught presently in the other place with votes.
Honourable senators will have the opportunity to engage with Mr. Morin and Ms. Shen on the substance of the bill. We already had the opportunity to have as an expert witness the Acting Chief Chief Electoral Officer last week, so members around the table are familiar with the general content of Bill C-50.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: My first question is about the list and the contribution limits.
Is the amount spent by participants for a fundraising event recorded? In other words, if the entry fee for a fundraising activity is $500 and a guest donates $1,000, is that $1,000 amount made public, including the name and address of the person? If so, where in Bill C-50 do we find that information?
Jean-François Morin, Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office: Thank you for your question, Senator Dupuis. The provisions of Bill C-50 do not mention disclosing contributions. The way in which contributions are disclosed is already set out in other provisions of the Canada Elections Act. However, Bill C-50 deals with the amount that can be spent to take part in a fundraising event.
So, to use your example, if the entry fee to an event is $500, $200 of that amount might cover the meal, the drinks and the room rental, and the contribution might be $300. In your example, you mentioned an additional contribution of $500. In the contributions report that the party must prepare, independently of the provisions of Bill C-50, that person would have a contribution of $800 listed against their name, but they would also see their name disclosed as a participant in the event. Do you see the difference?
Contributions are disclosed in one place, and the cost of participating in the event is disclosed under the provisions of Bill C-50.
Senator Dupuis: When money is collected in contravention of the provisions of the act, do you think that a fine of $1,000 would be enough to encourage people to comply with the law rather than to break it?
Mr. Morin: I actually do not want to express an opinion on the decision to impose a $1,000 fine. I would rather talk to you about the provisions of the act than the underlying politics.
First, the $1,000 fine is a fine of not more than $1,000 on summary conviction. It is a contravention of the strict liability mainly referred to in the provisions of the act that deal with announcing events in advance, regulated fundraising events, or the report that parties must prepare after fundraising events. So, if someone made a contribution in excess of the contribution amount, it would be dealt with under other, existing provisions of the Canada Elections Act. I can indicate which provisions, if you like.
Senator Dupuis: Yes, please. Thank you.
Mr. Morin: For example, subsection 384.4 of the Canada Elections Act, which is included in Bill C-50, stipulates that if the party, or the people, organizing a fundraising event do not comply with the disclosure requirements, either after the activity or in terms of giving advance notice, all unused contributions must be returned to the contributor or to the Receiver General of Canada. So this is a very strict provision that hopefully will encourage compliance from the parties.
Senator Dupuis: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Frum: On the $200 threshold, how did you arrive at that number?
Riri Shen, Director of Operations, Privy Council Office: I don’t think I can comment on how it was arrived at, but I can say that threshold aligns with other reporting obligations under the Canada Elections Act.
Senator Frum: In terms of privacy considerations when you drafted the bill, did you have any concerns about the protection of the information or whether or not political parties should be covered under PIPEDA?
Did you consider including any of that in this legislation?
Ms. Shen: I can’t comment on that.
Mr. Morin: Of course we cannot comment on why something was or was not added to the bill. That is with resort to the minister and cabinet. However, some privacy protection provisions have been included in the bill.
For example, for persons under the age of 18 who would be present at one of those regulated fundraising activities, their names would not be disclosed. It is the same for personnel supporting the attendees, et cetera. Yes, there are some privacy considerations included in the bill.
Senator McIntyre: I want to follow up on Senator Dupuis’ question on the fine. The bill calls for a $1,000 fine, but I note there are no offences in the Canada Elections Act with a fine as low as $1,000.
Shouldn’t the fine be increased to $5,000, the same amount levied for certain similar offences under the act?
Mr. Morin: This is a decision that the committee could take during your deliberations. I agree with you that the lowest maximum punishment right now in the Canada Elections Act is $2,000.
Senator McIntyre: My next question has to do with shareholders. In reviewing the bill, are you satisfied that it clearly defines all the shareholders who can organize regulated fundraising events?
The bill regulates fundraising events organized by persons or entities for the benefit of a political party, riding association or leadership candidate, but who are these persons? Who are these entities?
What do these terms mean? That’s the one of the problems that we face with the bill.
Ms. Shen: Perhaps you could just clarify. I am not sure I understand your questions.
The threshold for regulated event depends on for whom it’s organized, so parties, persons or entities cover pretty much everybody.
Senator McIntyre: Everybody like whom?
Ms. Shen: Everyone else.
Senator McIntyre: That attends the events?
Ms. Shen: No, who organizes the events. Sorry, I am not sure.
[Translation]
The Chair: Did you understand the question in terms of what Senator McIntyre wanted to emphasize?
[English]
Senator McIntyre, could you repeat your questions? I think Mr. Morin and Ms. Shen would probably like to better understand the information you are looking for.
Senator McIntyre: There are a lot of shareholders involved, a lot of shareholders who can organize regulated fundraising events, for example.
The Chair: Stakeholder or shareholders?
Senator McIntyre: Shareholders.
The Chair: Could you continue to express your concern?
Senator McIntyre: The bill regulates fundraising events organized by persons or entities for the benefit of a political party, riding association or leadership candidate.
My question is: Who are these persons and entities? That’s the question? Who are they?
Ms. Shen: For persons or entities, I believe it covers the full range. It could be an individual person. It could be organizations. It could be not-for-profit organizations. It could be corporations.
The Chair: Or unions?
Ms. Shen: Or unions, yes.
Senator McIntyre: I don’t find that the bill clarifies these terms. I think it would be good to clarify these terms to ensure consistency with the provisions of the act. That’s the point I am driving at.
Mr. Morin: What we are really concerned about here is that any of these persons who would organize such a regulated fundraising event would have to inform the party about it. The responsibility for making the event public always rests with the party.
Of course, there are some offences for some of these persons who would decide not to disclose it to the party; but the reporting mechanism Bill C-50 puts into place really puts the responsibility on the party.
If I may add, although some of these events could be organized by different persons and entities, given that some contributions will be collected under other provisions of the Canada Elections Act, these provisions will need to be collected by someone authorized by the agent of the candidate, the electoral district association or the party to accept these contributions.
There will always be someone responsible for accepting the contribution.
Senator McIntyre: The definition of fundraising events in the bill should be inclusive enough. That’s the point I was driving at. Thank you, Mr. Morin.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question has to do with club activities. Let me give you the example of the Liberal Party — the Conservatives have a similar group —where people pay $1,500 to be members of the Laurier Club. They then receive various benefits, such as invitations to Laurier Club events across the country to hear from the leaders of the Liberal team.
I note that subsection 384.1(4) excludes contributor appreciation events at conventions. Will the activities or benefits that come with the invitations — as we see here for the Laurier Club, in terms of events held outside a convention — be covered by the legislation and must they be declared if the Prime Minister or a minister participates?
Mr. Morin: Thank you very much for your question, Senator Carignan. Yes, absolutely. I am sorry, but I will have to give you a sort of technical answer; I will refer to various provisions from Bill C-50.
In items 384.1(1)(b)(ii)(A) and (B) — do you follow me?
Senator Carignan: Yes, on page 2, lines 10 to 25.
Mr. Morin: That’s right.
The Chair: We’re used to it.
Mr. Morin: Yes, of course.
Senator Carignan: We sit on the Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for a reason.
Mr. Morin: Perfect.
Item (A) states, and I quote:
(A) to have made a contribution or contributions of a total amount of more than $200. . .
And item (B) states:
(B) to have paid more than $200, the amount including a contribution. . .
This provision clearly refers to the amount paid or the amount of the contribution made in the past. This may include invitations. I won’t refer to the specific example you gave, but it may include invitations.
Senator Carignan: Invitations for those sorts of benefits associated with membership in a political party’s fundraising club?
Mr. Morin: That is exactly right.
Let’s now turn to subsection 384.1(2), which states, and I quote:
(2) Despite subsection (1), a regulated fundraising event . . .
So that describes an event that takes place during a convention of a registered party and does not fall under the definition of a regulated fundraising event.
Then subsection (3) states:
(3) Despite subsection (2), a regulated fundraising event includes an event that is part of a convention referred to in that subsection if the event is attended by at least one person who, in order to attend it, is required
(a) to make a contribution or contributions — in addition to any amount that they were required to pay to attend the convention — of a total amount of more than $200. . .
(b) to pay more than $200 — in addition to any amount that they were required to pay to attend the convention . . .
In that case, we are talking about the future and we are talking about an amount in addition to the amount required to attend the convention.
Senator Carignan: But in subsection (4), it is excluded for the convention.
Mr. Morin: I would call subsection (4) an interpretive provision.
Senator Carignan: In subsection (3), it is included, and in subsection (4), it is excluded.
Mr. Morin: In fact, subsection (3) includes events for which an amount has to be paid in addition to the amount set for attending the convention. Subsection (4) states that, if no additional amount must be paid and the event takes place during the party convention, the event is excluded.
Senator Carignan: If this event, recognizing the benefits of membership in the Laurier Club, is held outside a convention, then it must be declared.
Mr. Morin: Absolutely.
Senator Dupuis: May I ask a question?
The Chair: On the same issue?
Senator Dupuis: Yes. Am I to understand that, in order for this to be excluded, it is in our interest to organize a contributor appreciation event at a convention.
Mr. Morin: Thank you, senator. I can’t tell you whether a party can use any sections in particular, but you can ask the minister questions about how those activities are conducted during party conventions. This will probably shed some light for you.
Senator Dupuis: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Senator McIntyre, do you have a question on the same subject?
[English]
Senator McIntyre: It’s a correction for the record. A while ago when I referred to parties that can organize a regulated fundraising event, I spoke of shareholders. I meant stakeholders.
Senator Dupuis: That’s what I thought.
The Chair: I tried to suggest stakeholders to you. That’s what I understood you to be asking.
Senator McIntyre: I apologize for that. Un petit lapsus.
The Chair: It’s just to let you know I am listening when you’re questioning. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: Let me go back to subsection (4) of section 384.1. You talked about an interpretive provision; why are you talking about an interpretive provision? Quite frankly, I do not understand why subsection (4) is in the bill, because if people do not make a contribution to attend an event, it solves the problem and it is not a regulated event in that case. So I don’t understand why subsection (4) is in the bill.
Mr. Morin: Thank you, senator.
As I was saying, I think this provision could have been left out of the bill and that the other provisions could have already excluded that event.
Senator Pratte: Clearly.
Mr. Morin: But it was added to the bill to avoid any misunderstanding.
Senator Pratte: We will ask the minister for more details.
Going back to the questions that Senator Dupuis asked earlier, am I to understand that, if a person contributes $1,000, for example — which is very often the case for people reserving seats at a table to attend an event — the person’s donation or contribution will be published under the current provisions of the Canada Elections Act? Under Bill C-50, the attendance of persons will also be published if it matches... Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Morin: I would like to make a comment.
You’re talking about someone contributing $1,000, but that always depends on the price of the ticket. Bill C-50 would apply based on the ticket price. For example, if that person had contributed $1,000 to purchase 10 $100 tickets and none of the people attending that event were required to pay more than $200, then it would not be a regulated fundraising event.
Senator Pratte: Okay. But if it’s five $200 tickets, then the answer is yes.
Mr. Morin: Tickets would have to be more than $200.
Senator Pratte: Yes.
My concern is whether there will be a way to connect the two pieces of information; will the two pieces of information be published in two different places, which would make it difficult to make the connection?
Mr. Morin: The two pieces of information will be published in two different places. The bill includes a provision about the information that must be published after the event in subparagraph 384.3(2)(d), and I quote:
(d) the name of each person — other than any person referred to in paragraph (c) — who attended the event, along with the name of their municipality or its equivalent, their province and their postal code;
So the name of the person who made the contribution is not disclosed here; instead, it will be disclosed in the report on contributions.
Senator Pratte: Okay. So we’ll have to do some work to connect the two. Will it be possible to connect the two? It is not clear. You don’t have the answer?
The Chair: I’m going to ask the same question in a different way: why is the identity of the person dissociated from the activity? Basically, that is what you are doing in the bill.
Mr. Morin: I cannot answer why it was done that way; however, I could tell you that there are already rules in place in the Canada Elections Act for the disclosure of contributions. I can only suspect that the goal was not to impose an additional burden on political entities that would require them to disclose the same thing twice, which could also have created duplication of information.
Senator Pratte: We will think about that.
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome to both of you. Mr. Morin, last week, I asked Stéphane Perrault from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer a question that he was unable to answer and he advised me to ask the minister.
I asked him whether the bill was the result of events organized by Prime Minister Trudeau. Are you aware of the events that led to the draft of this bill?
Mr. Morin: No, senator, I do not have that information. That is the sort of question the minister really should be asked.
Senator Boisvenu: Let’s say that I am a Chinese man who lives in Vancouver, that members of my family come to visit me in Canada and that there is a fundraising event. Would I have the legal right to invite my brother, who is not a Canadian citizen, to the fundraising event to make a contribution, for example, of $300?
Mr. Morin: To make a political contribution in Canada, you must either be a citizen or have permanent resident status in Canada. Those are the rules set out in the Canada Elections Act, and they will be maintained.
Let me refer you to item 384.1(1)(b)(ii)(B), line 24, where it states:
. . . or to be the guest of a person who has made such a payment.
A foreigner could therefore not pay an entry fee that includes a contribution, since it would be an illegal contribution. But someone else could buy more than one ticket and invite certain people to an event, provided that the person declares the purchase of those tickets, that the names of those present are disclosed, but also that the maximum contribution, which is $1,575 for the year —
Senator Boisvenu: Even for a foreigner?
Mr. Morin: No. The amount of the contribution made by the Canadian or permanent resident in Canada who pays for the ticket must not exceed the maximum amount of $1,575 for 2018, for example.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you, I understand.
The Chair: Unfortunately, I hear the bells. As you know, under the Rules, I must suspend the committee meeting.
Ms. Shen and Mr. Morin, if you want to stay in the room, the minister has to join us after the vote. When we return, we can continue our discussion on Senator Boisvenu’s question and hear from the other senators on the list.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are resuming with Jean-François Morin, Senior Policy Advisor at the Privy Council Office, and Riri Shen, Director of Operations at the Privy Council Office. We’ll continue our discussions with you, ma’am and sir.
We’ll begin with Senator Dupuis, in the second round of questions on Bill C-50.
Senator Dupuis: The more people listen to you, the more they want you to stay with us, because you seem to have a very good understanding of what is in the bill, which isn’t obvious to outsiders. As you said, there are already measures in the act that are linked to the content of Bill C-50.
If I understand correctly, Bill C-50 would not cover all the fundraising activities and events that will take place during the election period. In other words, the required report must be filed 60 days later. Is that correct?
Mr. Morin: That’s right. Bill C-50 creates two types of obligations: first, a requirement to report regulated fundraising activities in advance, and a requirement to report on these activities 30 days after they have taken place. You are right, Senator Dupuis, there is an exception which provides that the first obligation, that of announcing the activity, is not required during a general election. This measure does not apply to by-elections, but to general elections. Indeed, parties will have to report regulated financing activities 60 days after the day of the election.
Senator Dupuis: With regard to the disclosure of names and postal codes — this measure won’t apply to minors, but to adults — is this a rule that already exists in the act or is it being introduced by Bill C-50? I’m talking about identifying people so specifically. With the postal code, you’re almost giving the address and building number.
Mr. Morin: A similar obligation currently exists in the Canada Elections Act. Political entities must report the name, city and postal code of people who donate more than $200 during the reference period. This type of obligation already exists. Bill C-50 introduces a new obligation, which is a variation of the first, to disclose the names of persons who participate in the activity.
As I told Senator Carignan earlier, someone could be invited to an event without having contributed to it, but the name of the guest would be disclosed in the report on the regulated fundraising activity.
Senator Dupuis: For instance, if I have a guest who is not a Canadian citizen, whether they are a member of my family or not, and who accompanies me to one of these activities, I wouldn’t be required to provide the postal code; or I would give mine, right?
Mr. Morin: You would have to give their contact information to identify where that person is from.
The Chair: And the person’s name would be published in the register.
Mr. Morin: Absolutely.
Senator Boisvenu: Last week, Mr. Perrault told us that he had difficulty distinguishing between a donor recognition activity and a fundraising activity. Donors are often recognized at fundraising events, so it’s the same old story. How can the legislation make a very clear distinction for political parties?
Mr. Morin: Are you talking specifically about the donor recognition event that takes place during a party leadership convention or outside?
Senator Boisvenu: Let’s say I have a fundraising event and it’s a donor recognition event.
Mr. Morin: As I said earlier, any activity for which a person needs to have donated more than $200 or paid more than $200 to participate will trigger the application of the regime provided for in Bill C-50, when that activity does not take place during a convention or a leadership convention. For example, if you decide to contribute $1,000 to a political party at any time during the year and that amount is not related to a regulated fundraising activity. You only contribute $1,000 to a political party and are then invited to a donor recognition event. At that point, the regime will apply.
The only exception to this is when the activity is held during a party convention or leadership convention, and you don’t have to pay an additional amount to attend the activity.
Senator Boisvenu: This can be a grey area, in the sense that people can fall through the cracks, cause some confusion and not report it. Isn’t that right?
Mr. Morin: I can’t answer that question, senator. I believe that the Chief Electoral Officer, in consultation with the advisory committee of political parties, has excellent tools for setting guidelines.
Senator Boisvenu: Rather than excluding donor recognition activity, it should perhaps be made clear that this activity is not subject to the law. And if it is not, should it be specified that it would be if it took place as part of a fundraising activity?
Basically, the legislation says that the activity is excluded if it takes place within the framework of a congress. Is that correct?
Mr. Morin: Yes, in fact.
Senator Boisvenu: But if it’s not at a convention, it’s included.
Mr. Morin: Yes.
Senator Boisvenu: But the activity may not constitute a fundraising campaign.
Mr. Morin: Right.
Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify my thoughts. Senator Boisvenu just said that an activity may not constitute a fundraising campaign. I am referring to the general rule that applies to an event held outside a convention. Indeed, it may not constitute a fundraising campaign if, for instance, the political party to which the contribution was made decides to invite to an activity only those people who have contributed more than $500 during the year.
Senator Boisvenu: The contribution can be made inside a convention and, at the same time, it can constitute a fundraising campaign. Is that the case?
Mr. Morin: I don’t want to mix things up. If it is done inside a convention and there is no need to pay an additional amount.
Senator Boisvenu: If an additional amount needs to be paid, it is no longer an excluded activity.
Mr. Morin: That’s right.
Senator Boisvenu: But all this isn’t set out in the act.
Mr. Morin: Yes, in fact, it is.
Senator Boisvenu: In the sense that if there is a donor recognition activity, nowhere else in the act is it mentioned that, if that activity is linked to a fundraising activity, it is not excluded.
Mr. Morin: In fact, the criterion that determines what constitutes a regulated fundraising activity or not is the amount of the contribution or the cost that had to be paid to participate in the activity.
Senator Boisvenu: In that case, I would say that it is a donor recognition activity. The legislation says it’s excluded.
Mr. Morin: That’s what I’m telling you. If the contribution is made outside a convention and the contributor has had to pay more than $200 in the past, it will always be included.
The Chair: I will illustrate what Senator Boisvenu said. Let’s say there is a convention and a recognition event, as Senator Carignan said earlier, for Laurier Club members. Normally, if you are a member of this club, you are invited to the recognition event. But as part of this activity, it is also announced that, if you want to become a Laurier Club member, you will participate in this recognition activity.
So, in order to be included in the attendance that will have the opportunity to meet at the convention, you will have to pay for your Laurier Club membership, but you are participating in a Laurier Club member recognition event. In that case, will the new member’s name and contribution be registered under the other provisions of the bill?
Mr. Morin: Mr. Chair, I refer you to page 2 of the bill, at line 29, which corresponds to subsection 384.1(3). It states:
Despite subsection (2), a regulated fundraising event includes an event that is part of a convention referred to in that subsection if the event is attended by at least one person who, in order to attend it, is required . . .
In the example you just gave, if, to be a member of a club, you say that a person must contribute at least $1,500, the entire activity will be considered a regulated fundraising activity and all the rules in Bill C-50 will apply to that activity.
The Chair: Right.
Mr. Morin: The identity of the persons who will attend, whether they have had to pay or not, must be declared.
The Chair: Thank you for your response, Mr. Morin.
Senator Carignan: If I understand correctly, there are two types of publication. There is the publication of the activity with the name of the organizer — information that must be on the website — and there is the report that includes the names of the people who attended, which is sent to the Chief Electoral Officer and must be published as soon as possible after it is received. It does not say how the Chief Electoral Officer should publish the information. Is that correct?
Mr. Morin: Excuse me; I’ll check.
Senator Carignan: I’m talking about the report in subsection 384.3(13), which includes the names of the participants.
Mr. Morin: It does say “in the manner that he or she considers appropriate,” but in recent history, reports have been published on Elections Canada’s website.
Senator Carignan: You said that a foreign person could attend and that some of their personal information, such as the municipality and province where the person lives, as well as the postal code, should be disclosed. We’re not talking about the country. If you look further, it isn’t necessary to include people under the age of 18. It is as if, because a person isn’t a voter, we don’t have to publish their name, and it seems that foreigners have been forgotten.
Mr. Morin: As far as people under 18 are concerned, I agree with you; this is a specific exception that has been provided for. And with respect to the name of each person, I read the same thing you read in paragraph 384.2(2)(d) on page 5, line 18.
Senator Carignan: So if I invite someone from abroad, are they allowed to attend? And if the person attends, should I publish his or her name?
Mr. Morin: Yes, you can invite the person. As I mentioned earlier, the presence of invited people is provided for in item 384.1(1)(b)(ii)(B). More specifically, I am on page 2, line 19 of the bill. Individuals may be invited to participate in a regulated fundraising event, even if it is not the person attending who paid for the ticket, and the names of those attending the event must be published.
Senator Carignan: What do I indicate if my guest is not a Canadian citizen?
Mr. Morin: You certainly have to indicate the person’s name. I agree with you that it is the city, province and postal code, but these are details that the Chief Electoral Officer will probably be able to provide later.
Senator Carignan: Or the Senate, in the case of an amendment.
Mr. Morin: Or the Senate, in the case of an amendment, absolutely.
Senator Gold: I apologize for being late.
Under the bill, what about the exclusion of parliamentary secretaries and chiefs of staff? Can you comment on that?
Mr. Morin: Unfortunately, senator, I must leave that question to the minister when she appears later today. Parliamentary secretaries and staff from ministers’ offices are not covered under the bill.
Senator Gold: Right, thank you.
In his appearance before a committee of the other place, Professor Éric Montigny of Laval University expressed concern about smaller political parties and their ability to manage the obligations imposed by the bill. Are you concerned about this issue, or do you have any comments?
Mr. Morin: I can’t comment on a policy issue. However, on page 1, line 15, of the bill it states that the provisions of Bill C-50 apply only to a registered party that is represented in the House of Commons on the day the event occurs. Therefore, this does not apply to all registered parties, only to those that have a seat in the House of Commons.
Senator Gold: I understand, Mr. Morin, but there is a big difference between a big national machine and the parties, even if they are represented in the House of Commons, because they have much fewer resources and greater fundraising needs.
Mr. Morin: I understand.
Senator Gold: Is there a concern?
Mr. Morin: I do understand your concern, without commenting on the political decision — for example, in the case of a third party with few members in the House of Commons — the provisions would apply only to party leaders and leadership candidates. The requirement is not as great as for the party that forms government, to which the bill would more broadly apply.
Senator Gold: Thank you, Mr. Morin.
Mr. Morin: Thank you, senator.
[English]
Senator Mercer: This bill does fix something that was not present before.
If I recall correctly, it was possible to seek the leadership of a registered political party with representation in the House of Commons, perhaps win that leadership, win the election, become prime minister and, prior to this legislation, not have the word “must” as in must reveal the source of their funding for their leadership campaign.
Is that correct?
Mr. Morin: Again, I would answer in two parts. Yes, Bill C-50 addresses that issue, in a way, in the sense that leadership contestants are covered by Bill C-50. Therefore, if regulated fundraising events are organized for their benefit, the list of attendees will need to be disclosed.
For the second part of my answer, that being said, I think leadership contests have been regulated by the Canada Elections Act, from memory I will tell you, since 2004. I stand to be corrected on that.
Senator Mercer: There was one prominent leader of a national political party who was elected leader and subsequently became the prime minister who has never yet revealed the source of the funds for his leadership campaign.
Mr. Harper never told anybody, upon questioning, where he got the money to run for leader.
Mr. Morin: I cannot comment on that precise example, but I can tell you that leadership contests have been regulated in the Canada Elections Act for at least 10 years now.
Senator Mercer: Thank you
Mr. Morin: You are welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is about the contributions made under clause 384.4, line 7, on page 9. Just before that, it says:
If . . . a candidate . . . receives a contribution in respect of a regulated fundraising event in respect of which section 384.2 or 384.3 is not complied with, . . . within 30 days after becoming aware of the non-compliance . . . return the contribution unused to the contributor . . .
What is this unused contribution? A lot of information is required under clauses 384.2 and 384.3. If the person makes a mistake or does not indicate the location of the fundraising activity, what do they have to return?
Mr. Morin: The concept of an unused contribution already exists elsewhere in the Canada Elections Act. For instance, if a contribution exceeds the contribution limit, as soon as the financial officer becomes aware of that, he must return the unused contribution.
Senator Carignan: That makes sense. On the other hand, if I did not indicate the location of the fundraising activity or did not report all the ministers who were present, what would the penalty be?
Mr. Morin: What do you mean?
Senator Carignan: Tell me what “contribution unused” means. If I report that there were four ministers in attendance but there were eight, what is the unused contribution?
Mr. Morin: The purpose of clause 384.4 is to get the parties and individuals who hold regulated fundraising activities to comply with all the provisions and to report.
Senator Carignan: Is there a penalty other than that?
Mr. Morin: Yes, indeed. First, I am not the one who will be applying this clause. It is the Chief Electoral Officer.
Senator Carignan: I see.
Mr. Morin: I expect this clause will not apply to minor written errors. We will focus on more significant omissions. It is an indeed administrative provision, but there are other criminal provisions in the bill to address cases of non-compliance with the provisions.
Senator Carignan: Which clause are you referring to?
Mr. Morin: It begins on page 14, line 28. It is clause 497.01.
Senator Carignan: Okay. There can be a criminal offence, but the unused contribution will not necessarily be reimbursed.
Mr. Morin: As I said, there are two different processes. The reimbursement of contributions falls under an administrative process. It is up to the official who becomes aware of non-compliance with a provision to trigger this process. The criminal provisions are administered by the Commissioner of Canada Elections following an investigation. I will mention a bill that has not yet been considered by the Senate. Bill C-76, which was tabled in the other house, includes a provision, for instance, that would allow Commissioner of Canada Elections to lay charges himself rather than first referring them to the Director of Public Prosecutions for approval.
In short, the return of contributions is an administrative matter. That aspect is overseen by the Chief Electoral Officer and the parties. The criminal provisions apply further to an investigation by the Commissioner of Canada Elections. If charges are then laid, that would be —
Senator Carignan: But for the time being, it is not up to him to lay charges.
Mr. Morin: At present, he needs prior approval from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Chair: I would like to go back to Senator Carignan’s questions. On page 16, line 24, the amount of the fine is $1,000. Earlier this afternoon, Senator McIntyre made a remark that led you to say that, in the Canada Elections Act as a whole, the maximum fines are $1,000. When were these fines in the Canada Elections Act last amended?
Mr. Morin: I’m sorry, did I say that?
The Chair: No, I am not saying that you said that. I mean that Senator Carignan said it. When was the $1,000 fine established in the Canada Elections Act? You told us that this amount had been established because, in the Canada Elections Act, that is the amount set out for the other offences in the act.
Mr. Morin: I will have to check. I cannot answer right now.
The Chair: It seems that the amount has become less significant over time, since it was established 30 years ago. The value of $1,000 is not the same value as it was 30 years ago. We are trying to understand the appropriateness of this amount since you say it is the amount that is set out in practice in the Canada Elections Act and that applies to all offences under the act.
Mr. Morin: No, if I said that, I apologize.
Senator Dupuis: We understood that you said that $2,000 was the minimum fine in the current act.
Mr. Morin: Yes.
Senator Dupuis: We are trying to understand why it is $1,000 here.
The Chair: Yes, exactly. I am trying to see how that $1,000 corresponds to the rest of the Canada Elections Act. If that is the limit elsewhere in the act, is that still a meaningful amount given the behaviour that is to be curbed?
Mr. Morin: I will explain my answer once again to make sure it is clear. The penalties in the Canada Elections Act are in section 500 of the act. The provisions in question generally set out the maximum fines. Earlier, I said that the smallest fine was $2,000 strictly for the offences under section 501 of the Act.
The lowest maximum fine at present is $2,000. The maximum fines for other offences can be up to $50,000 in some cases.
So a maximum fine of $1,000 would be lower than the current maximum in the act.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I hear the bells so I will have to adjourn the meeting. I would point out that the minister is also in the House of Commons for a vote and she has offered to appear at 12:30 tomorrow. Is that okay?
Senator Carignan: There is a caucus meeting.
The Chair: We will ask her office if she can appear next week. She assured me that she does want to appear. If we have to adjourn at 12:30 tomorrow, it will of course be impossible for her to appear tomorrow.
Thank you, Ms. Shen and Mr. Morin, for being here and for answering our questions.
(The committee adjourned.)