House of Commons Hansard #48 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was senate.

Topics

Tackling Violent Crime LegislationGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Tackling Violent Crime LegislationGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred until Tuesday, February 11 at 3 p.m.

(Bill C-29. On the Order: Government Orders:)

December 5, 2007--Report stage of Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans) as deemed reported by a committee with amendments--Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

There have been consultations among all parties concerning additional report stage amendments to Bill C-29.

These amendments are necessary to ensure that other provisions of the Canada Elections Act are consistent with amendments that have been made to the bill by the procedure and House affairs committee.

Although report stage debate of the bill has already begun, and many of the amendments that have been under discussion are beyond the scope of Bill C-29, Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following six amendments.

I would ask for the indulgence of the House, as these amendments are lengthy. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-29 be amended by adding after line 13 on page 1 the following:

2.1 Subsection 403.34(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

403.34(1) An unpaid claim mentioned in a return referred to in subsection 403.35(1) is deemed to be a contribution of the unpaid amount to the registered association made as of the day on which the expense was incurred or the loan was made, as the case may be, if the claim remains unpaid in whole or in part

(a) 18 months after the end of the fiscal period to which the return relates, in the case of a claim to be paid for an expense; or

(b) three years after the day on which the amount is due according to the terms of the loan, in the case of a claim for a loan made to the registered association under section 405.5.

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-29 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 6 the following:

7.1 Subsection 423.1(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

423.1(1) An unpaid claim mentioned in the financial transactions return referred to in subsection 424(1) or in an election expenses return referred to in subsection 429(1) is deemed to be a contribution to the registered party of the unpaid amount on the day on which the expense was incurred or the loan was made, as the case may be, if the claim remains unpaid in whole or in part

(a) 18 months after the end of the fiscal period to which the return relates or in which the polling day fell, as the case may be, in the case of a claim to be paid for on expense; or

(b) three years after the end of that fiscal period in the case of a claim for a loan made to the registered party under section 405.5

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-29, in clause 10, be amended by:

(a) replacing line 1 on page 7 with the following:

10.(1) Subsection 435.24(1) of the Act is

(b) adding after line 8 on page 7 the following:

(2)The portion of subsection 435.24(2) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(2) The requirement to pay a claim within three years does not apply to a claim in respect of which

435.29(1) An unpaid claim mentioned in a return referred to in subsection 435.3(1) is deemed to be a contribution of the unpaid amount to the leadership contestant made as of the day on which the expense was incurred if the claim remains unpaid, in whole or in part, three years after the end of the leadership contest.

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the house, Bill C-29 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 8 the following:

13.1 Subsection 435.29(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

435.29(1) An unpaid claim mentioned in a return referred to in subsection 435.3(1) is deemed to be a contribution of the unpaid amount to the leadership contestant made as of the day on which the expense was incurred if the claim remains unpaid, in whole or in part, three years after the end of the leadership contest.

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-29 be amended by adding after line 41 on page 10 the following:

19.1 Subsection 450(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

450.(1) An unpaid claim mentioned in a return referred to in subsection 451(1) is deemed to be a contribution of the unpaid amount to the candidate made as of the day on which the expense was incurred or the loan was made, as the case may be, if the claim remains unpaid in whole or in part

(a) 18 months after polling day for the election to which the return relates, in the case of a claim to be paid for a candidate's electoral campaign expense; or

(b) three years after that polling day, in the case of a claim for a loan made to the candidate under section 405.5.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. I want to let the hon. parliamentary secretary know that apparently there is a bit of an issue with translation. If he would slow down a little bit.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Finally, I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-29 be amended by adding after line 3 on page 13 the following:

25.1 Subsection 478.22(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

478.22(1) An unpaid claim mentioned in a return referred to in subsection 478.23(1) is deemed to be a contribution of the unpaid amount to the nomination contestant made as of the day on which the expense was incurred or the loan was made, as the case may be, if the claim remains unpaid in whole or in part

(a) 18 months after the selection date--or in the case referred to in subsection 478.23(7), after the polling day--in the case of a claim to be paid for a nomination contestant's nomination campaign expense; or

(b) three years and one day after the selection date--or in the case referred to in subsection 478.23(7), after the polling day--in the case of a claim for a loan made to the nomination contestant under section 405.5.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and all members for their indulgence in this matter.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, as much as I trust my hon. colleague and as much as we want to cooperate, there is a bit of a discrepancy in amendment No. 3, not in the sense that we do not agree with the wording that he has just read. It is just that we do not have that wording.

If you want to bear with us, Mr. Speaker, within the next few minutes we can check with our hon. colleague from the government side to take notice of amendment No. 3 and we can then get back to you, Mr. Speaker.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is the hon. member suggesting that we proceed to the adopting of the other amendments? We will reserve amendment No. 3 and allow for the House leaders to chat and we can then reintroduce it. Is that the suggestion?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, either that or we can look at everything together in a few minutes.

My hon. colleague, who was proposing these amendments, as you will recall, had trouble finding his way in his different papers. We do not have those papers. You can imagine the trouble that we are having. If my colleague wants to hold off for a few minutes and let us check the wording on amendment No. 3, then we will come back within minutes.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my hon. colleague. We are attempting to get all of Amendment No. 3 from our lobby.

Again, I will gladly read it into the record. The hon. member is quite correct that there was some confusion there. One of the pages required to follow up on the completion of Amendment No. 3 was not here. We will attempt to get that in a matter of moments. Then, with the indulgence of the House, I could refer to Amendment No. 3 and read it completely into the record. Then we could deal with the entire amendment package as whole, if that would satisfy my hon. colleague.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

It seems that is the will of the House at the moment.

Does the hon. member for Hull--Aylmer have anything else to say?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

So do I understand that we will hold off on all of the amendments until we get Amendment No. 3 and then give our consent to the whole list of amendments?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Yes, I think that is what the agreement would be.

Before we go on to orders of the day, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Richmond Hill, Tourist Industry; the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Manufacturing and Forestry Industries.

The House resumed from December 5, 2007 consideration of Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans), as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

When Bill C-29 was last being debated, the hon. member for Halton had the floor, but since he is not able to finish his speech, we will move on.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we will give members the entire copy of all the amendments in their package in hard copy format. I believe the hon. members' lobby has seen the hard copy, hence the unanimous consent that was granted by all parties, informally, before I read these amendments into the record.

I see my hon. colleagues opposite indicating that they do not have it. I will reserve reading it into the record until we ensure that members opposite have copies in front of them.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that when it comes to the political financing, the Bloc Québécois is very proud of its record.

When the Bloc first entered the House of Commons in 1993, there were some issues that were very important to us. We spoke, for example, about abolishing the other place. I must say in passing that I have heard a lot of my colleagues talk about the Senate. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was against the rules to use that word here. We have to say the other chamber. So I will speak about the other chamber, as prescribed in the House practices and procedures.

We said at the time that the other chamber should be abolished, and people nearly called us crazy. It was the same story with regard to the creation of an institute to work toward making the U.S. dollar the currency used throughout North America. We did not say we wanted to do that, just that we wanted an institute to study the question. Once again, everybody said, “Oh, those people are crazy”.

One of our most important concerns was political financing. In Quebec, we had already cleaned up the way things were done. The great René Lévesque of the Parti Québécois introduced a bill to this effect in the National Assembly more than 30 years ago. Since then, political funding has been cleaned up in Quebec. In other words, political parties can no longer accept contributions from big companies or big unions. There are also limits on individual contributions.

It was only natural, therefore, that when we came to Ottawa, we would want things here done the same way. Even though there are laws and regulations, I still see people trying to circumvent them, and loans to individuals are one of the ways.

The Conservatives are partly right when they say that the people in the Liberal leadership race took out some very large loans. We can certainly say that it was not proper and not in keeping with the spirit of the law. I have in front of me the contributions made to Bob Rae, and included among the $705,000 in loans are $580,000 from his brother, John Rae.

We obviously cannot just let this kind of thing go. The opposition leader himself borrowed $655,000 and there are some very important people who loaned him money: Mamdouh Stephanos, $150,000; Marc de la Bruyere, $100,000; Stephen Bronfman, $50,000; Roderick Bryden, $50,000; Christopher Hoffman, $25,000.

We know what that means, in other words, exactly what it meant back in the days when big companies and individuals could donate money without any control. Politicians were in the clutches of their big contributors. Could someone speak directly to the opposition leader if he gave the Liberal Party $5? I do not think so. But someone who had given $150 or $250 at the time could probably have contacted a minister’s or even the premier’s office directly.

The Conservatives have their theory. I think, though, that they are a bit quick to play innocent because they too have serious problems with transparency. We in the Bloc Québécois would like to know, among other things, how much the current Prime Minister's leadership campaign cost back in 2002 and who financed it. He has never been willing to reveal this completely. He unveiled part of the list but never all of it.

I said they play innocent. It is easy to cast the blame on the Liberal Party, but they too are hardly blameless. They see the mote in their adversary’s eye but not the beam in their own that is even worse. There is, for instance, all the cronyism between politicians’ offices and the big lobbying firms. The best example of this is certainly the former defence minister who worked for a lobbying firm for many years and then was one of the first to award big contracts to the entire industry, including his former clients. There is a certain problem with this and a certain decency that is wanting.

We could talk about contracts for friends of the party in power. People have been talking about this again just recently.

The Minister of Finance awarded a $122,000 contract directly to one of his friends, violating all the regulations.

Why is this allowed? It happens here in the House of Commons. I see the Conservatives acting shocked in front of the Liberals, but they are no better about using public money for partisan purposes. When the Conservatives were the official opposition, I remember very well hearing them tell the government that what it was doing with public money was appalling, that it was using public money to conduct surveys for the party, which it then used for elections or bills in order to be in line with public opinion.

Since the Conservatives have been in power, it has been even worse. The Conservatives have some things to be ashamed of, including their handbook on how to stall the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In fact, I think that the member who just spoke about amendments talked for seven or eight hours in order to stall the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Why? Because 67 of these members overrode the Canada Elections Act. They are lecturing us, telling us what to do to correct the injustices of the system. They should take a look in the mirror. I think they will see at least 10 members from Quebec, including three Conservative ministers. But they continue to waste the time of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, perhaps waiting for the next election. Maybe then the same thing will start up again, especially if Elections Canada has not rendered a decision.

There are also all the partisan appointments: Jim Gouk, whom we all know as a former Conservative MP, was appointed to the NAV Canada board of directors—the government controls three seats on the NAV Canada board of directors; Gwyn Morgan, a big Conservative fundraiser, was appointed chairperson of the Public Appointments Commission; and Kevin Gaudet, a Conservative organizer who worked on the leadership race, was appointed to the Canada Pension Plan Review Tribunal. I could go on, but I do not want to waste too much time because I have only 10 minutes. We have a complete list of partisan political appointments. This is absolutely unacceptable, and the problems persist. We want to change things.

When the Conservatives were in opposition, I often heard one of them say that it had to be made easier for whistleblowers to do their job, so that someone who witnessed something truly unfair would report it. We are still waiting. I believe that whistleblowers are paid $1,500 for legal expenses, but if it costs more, they have to cover it. We are not giving whistleblowers the tools and instruments they need, so that they can report situations when they notice anomalies and things that are unacceptable in the system.

In terms of access to information, I myself have never, in 14 years, seen a government as secretive as this one, and we see the evidence of this every day. For weeks, we have been asking what is happening with prisoners, but we are unable to find out. If we request a document under the Access to Information Act, not only are they going to exceed the time allowed outrageously, but in addition the documents delivered to us will be completely censored. Whole pages are censored.

As a final point regarding the amendments, we do not like the one that makes the political party liable if a candidate does not repay a large loan. We would like that to be amended.

So we are proud of our achievements. The Bloc Québécois brought order to public finances in Quebec, and has succeeded in bringing order to the funding of political parties in the House of Commons. We will now make sure that this continues, because for us, this is a fundamental concept of democracy.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may, for the record, I truly thank all of my colleagues for their indulgent cooperation. I did not want to interrupt my hon. colleague's speech. I would like to get Amendment No. 3 read into the record officially. This will be the amendment of the package on the point of order that I read a few moments ago, Amendment No. 3.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent to adopt the following amendment. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-29, in clause 10, be amended by:

(a) replacing line 1 on page 7 with the following:

10.(1) Subsection 435.24(1) of the Act is

(b) adding after line 8 on page 7 the following:

(2) The portion of subsection 435.24(2) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(2) The requirement to pay a claim within three years does not apply to a claim in respect of which

Once again, I am thankful for the cooperation of all members on this matter.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

We will now deal with the package of amendments, including Amendment No. 3 which has now been clarified by the hon. parliamentary secretary.

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the amendments?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

(Amendments No. 1 to 6 agreed to)

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. member for Saint-Jean. I listened to his speech and, indeed, I really wonder about the Conservative government's philosophy and way of doing, or not doing, things. We have two more examples, namely the $875,000 fence, under a contract that raises some serious questions, and also the recent contract awarded for drafting the budget. We do not know what is going to happen in the case of the February 26 budget.

This raises suspicion. In his speech, our colleague illustrated why we have some very serious questions about the government's real intentions. As history shows—and this is particularly true with René Lévesque—the transparency of a government is very important, but so too is its integrity. I wonder if our colleague could elaborate on the recent events that now raise very real suspicion.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I did try, in my 10-minute speech, to show that there was a problem. It is all well and fine to pass legislation and for the Conservative Party to accuse the opposition of attempting to circumvent the laws, but as I said earlier, they see the mote in their adversary's eye but not the beam in their own.

Reference was made to a fence and to the infamous budget speech prepared at a cost of $45 a word. There is much more however. The purchase of $20 billion worth of military equipment is going totally unnoticed. That is a major problem. Do members know how much $20 billion is? That is 20,000 millions of dollars. Hardly any parliamentary oversight over such expenditure.

Besides the fence and the budget speech, there are also the bids and military procurement. This government is keeping us in the dark in that case as in many others. It is a secretive government; there is no escaping it.

It is a good thing that the opposition is there to denounce such actions. Not only does the Bloc Québécois denounce them, but it sometimes manages to counter them. In addition, the Bloc Québécois was the opposition party that introduced in the House the rules governing political party financing. We are doing a fine job and we will continue to ensure that contributions and taxpayers' money are managed properly, and in a transparent manner.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I had a little surgery last week and rise a bit more slowly, but do not worry because I will be ready for the next election and fast on my feet.

I have a question for my colleague from Saint-Jean, who gave a very interesting speech in 10 minutes, as he himself said. He was not able to cover the entire issue, but never mind, there will be several Bloc speeches on Bill C-29.

I wanted to ask my colleague what he thinks about the fact that the opposition parties made some very interesting suggestions in committee to improve this bill. It is up to us now in the House. The government brought three motions forward, of which two are totally unacceptable. I would like my colleague to tell us more about one of them. It says that when candidates incur debts, their political party is responsible for them. The Conservative government is keen on this and I would like to know what my colleague from Saint-Jean thinks.