Bill C-21 (Historical)

Political Loans Accountability Act

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to political loans)

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to enact rules concerning loans, guarantees and suretyships with respect to registered parties, registered associations, candidates, leadership contestants and nomination contestants.

Political Loans Accountability Act

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election in May 2011, the NDP succeeded in getting a record 40% women elected. Women were also very well represented in our leadership race.

In the opinion of my colleague from Québec, how important is it to fix the rules on political loans with respect to women's representation in politics? In society, women account not for 40% or 30% of the population, but 51%. How could the rules we would like to see adopted here create a more gender-balanced representation in the House of Commons? I see it as essential.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing up this important point.

We can never repeat it enough: the NDP made a historic achievement when 40% of its elected candidates were women; no other party has ever achieved such a record. I believe we can congratulate ourselves, because it is fantastic. I thank my colleague for bringing it up. Women's rights are important. This is a point we have also raised when discussing other bills, which shows how strongly we support it.

Bill C-21 really aims to eliminate the influence of the richest participants in politics, so that one candidate is not favoured over another, or a female candidate is not favoured over a male one. This is a very important objective, in my eyes. The goal is not to favour one party or one group over another.

This is what we will need to discuss in depth when the committee studies this bill, to ensure there is no favouritism and all candidates have an equal chance. I believe it is important, and it also speaks to what democracy is all about. I know everyone on this side of the House shares this idea with deep conviction.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give sincere thanks to my colleague for what she told us today and for speaking with the conviction which accurately reflects what motivates us.

I hope that the people who are listening to what goes on in the House at the moment can hear the originality and sense of political renewal that characterize her and that have characterized the party for a long time now.

In her view, could we not imagine that giving a signal that politics can be virtuous might be the beginning of a promising collaboration?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have caught the ball on the fly and I am also going to talk about another historic exploit accomplished by the NDP. We are going to talk about it. Let us talk about our young people. It is fantastic. People cannot get over the fact that our party is made up of people from 20 to 70 years old, and even a little older. We have brought together people from all generations and this is a wonderful thing. I commend Jack Layton on his excellent work. I also applaud the work that has been done by my leader. It is like a breath of fresh air and we all want to start out on an equal footing.

I was saying that the NDP does not automatically favour men rather than women and I can also say that we do not favour those who are older as opposed to those who are younger and who are able to rise to the challenge of carrying on a real debate here in the House and proudly representing their regions and their constituents.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech and on the passion with which she speaks every day in this House.

On reading the bill, I found a flaw in terms of financial institutions. In my colleague's view, is it possible that financial institutions might prefer certain political parties rather than others?

Does my colleague agree that this question should receive further consideration?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has just raised an excellent point.

It is not a matter of putting everything into the hands of the financial institutions but really of ensuring that everyone has an equal chance. I think this is really the solution. We will have to consider all aspects of any concrete solution that is put forward in committee in order to remedy this problem.

There is indeed a problem. We saw it during the Liberals’ leadership race. We want to resolve this issue and we will have to hold a debate about it in committee.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-21 which, for reasons I will explain in a moment, the Liberals will oppose.

The bill does a number of things. It amends the Canada Elections Act in the following ways: All loans to political entities, including mandatory disclosure of terms and the identity of all lenders and loan guarantees, must be uniform and transparent. We are fine with that. Unions and corporations are prohibited from making loans to political parties, associations, or candidates. That is fine. Limiting the amount of loans and loan guarantees that individuals can make within the framework of the permitted individual annual contribution is also fine. Limiting the ability of financial institutions and political entities to make loans beyond the annual contribution limit for individuals and only at commercial rates of interest is the part we do not agree with. Finally, there are tighter rules for the treatment of unpaid loans to ensure candidates cannot walk away from unpaid loans.

The Liberal caucus certainly is in favour of full transparency and disclosure of political loans. We are also in favour of forcing those loans to bear commercial interest rates.

What is a problem for us is when the bill says that only financial institutions or banks will have the authority to make these loans.

Before entering politics, 12 years ago, I worked for the Royal Bank. So I am well aware of how banks work. In my view, it is not the banks that asked for this exclusive authority, but rather the government that wants to give it to them. This puts too much power into the hands of the banks. Basically, the banks would have the authority to make political choices by lending money to the candidate they like the most and by not giving a loan to a candidate they do not like. I am not saying that that is what they would do, but all the same, it gives excessive power to the financial institutions.

Furthermore, with these rules, the candidates with more money, the candidates who are wealthier, would have an advantage, because they would have a better credit rating than candidates who are not as wealthy. This kind of system would favour the rich rather than treating everyone fairly. The system might also be unfavourable to women, especially to those who are going back into the labour market after a number of years at home. They might be less able to borrow money from a bank because they would not have as much money.

For all of these reasons, the Liberals will be voting against this bill.

I want to emphasize that it is only the exclusive aspect of the banks being the only lenders that we object to. We are entirely in favour of total transparency, total disclosure, the requirement to pay commercial interest rates, and so on.

In closing, I would remind the House that the Prime Minister has not, to this day, disclosed any of the names of the people who contributed to his leadership campaign, let alone the sums involved, let alone whether he borrowed any money. I would say that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. I would suggest that as the government is moving forward with this law, now would be a good time for the Prime Minister to disclose at least the names of his donors, if not the amounts.

Perhaps during questions and comments one of the Conservatives could give their view on the proposition I just put forward.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit surprised to learn that the Liberal Party will vote against this bill. Do the Liberals not understand that it is necessary to clarify the rules in order to limit the power held by groups or third parties over funding for political parties?

Perhaps the Liberals do not understand how serious the situation is. An affluent group will be able to give because it has more money, while a rights advocacy group for instance will not be able to donate. There is therefore a chance that a candidate will do what he or she is asked to do by the lender.

Can my Liberal colleague explain a little more clearly why the Liberals have decided to vote against the bill, which seems hypothetically to be a very good thing for our democracy?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I was very clear on this issue. I said that the Liberals were totally in favour of these transparency rules that aim at disclosing all funding. The only thing we do not like about this bill is that it gives financial institutions exclusive authority for granting loans. I explained our reasons, that it was worse for women and for those who were not as wealthy. This is why we are against it. I think I was clear about this, and I think this is a good reason not to support this bill.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the fact that this bill might be unfavourable to women. I do not agree at all. Financial institutions are not the only thing that matters when we talk about women becoming involved in politics. It is a social issue and one that relates to the place of women in political parties. It is much more than just a question of money; it is a question of openness, of position and of the steps being taken to promote the involvement of women.

What does the Liberal Party have to propose to encourage women to become more involved in politics, as the NDP has done? Is it prepared to be more open so the interests of women are represented? I can give as an example the vote on motion M-312 earlier this week. There are parties that clearly defend women's rights, such as the NDP, which voted unanimously on that motion this week.

Can the Liberal Party acknowledge the fact that it is not just money that determines whether women become involved in politics or not?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Liberal Party has been and is still extremely open to women, whether we are talking about women standing for election or becoming involved in other areas.

Our opposition to this bill, to giving the banks exclusive lending authority, is supportive of women. As I said in my speech, of course not all women are poor, but some women who stopped working in order to stay home and who are going back into the labour force may perhaps be less wealthy than some men are.

We are not saying that the banks cannot make loans; we are saying that the banks should not have the exclusive authority to make loans.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see co-operation in the House, which is somewhat unique, to move the bill forward and close the loopholes that need to be closed.

However, it is unfortunate that instead of working with the other parties to move the bill forward and close these loopholes, the members of the Liberal Party have decided to side with their insiders who have yet to pay back their unpaid debts from their leadership races. Despite six years of leniency from Elections Canada, those individuals have not paid these debts back.

Why does the hon. member not believe that it is important to take big money out of the political process? What the bill does is get unions and their big money, corporations and wealthy individuals out. It closes that loophole.

Ordinary Canadians are expected to repay loans with strict rules and guidelines. The same should apply to politicians. Why do the Liberals not believe that?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to be so terribly co-operative, one way he can get Liberal support is simply to deny the exclusive right of financial institutions to make these loans. It should be broadened. That is what I said in my speech.

If the minister thinks he is so co-operative, why does he not consider an amendment of that kind? Then he would have the Liberals on side. However, he is all keen to go in this one direction without any consideration for compromise or negotiation with us. I do not know why he thinks we should come on bended knee and support his bill for which he has absolutely no flexibility.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that the purpose of the bill is to try to get big money out of financing. The member has mentioned he has problems with it being limited to financial institutions. What kind of entities is he talking about in terms of funding for political candidates?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, individuals perhaps could lend money as long as their identities were made clear, as long as the amounts were made clear and as long as the interest rate was commercial.

For example, sometimes the family members of a candidate might want to lend some money. Maybe we are talking about an individual who does not necessarily have the world's greatest credit rating and might have trouble getting money from the bank in significant quantity. This person might have friends or associates who would be willing to lend him or her some money. As long as it was clear, transparent and at commercial interest rates that would fine and it would give greater flexibility to the system without any loss of transparency.