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

This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 2nd session, which ended in September 2008.

Sponsor

Peter Van Loan  Conservative

Status

Second reading (Senate), as of June 26, 2008
(This bill did not become law.)

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

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.

Similar bills

C-21 (41st Parliament, 1st session) Political Loans Accountability Act
C-19 (40th Parliament, 3rd session) Political Loans Accountability Act
C-54 (39th Parliament, 1st session) An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans)

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-29s:

C-29 (2022) Law National Council for Reconciliation Act
C-29 (2021) Law Port of Montreal Operations Act, 2021
C-29 (2016) Law Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2
C-29 (2014) Law Appropriation Act No. 1, 2014-15
C-29 (2011) Law Appropriation Act No. 3, 2011-12
C-29 (2010) Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act

Votes

June 17, 2008 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
June 10, 2008 Passed That Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans), as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.
June 10, 2008 Passed That Bill C-29, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 35 on page 5 with the following: “Officer shall inform the lender of his or her decision; furthermore, the candidate's registered association or, if there is no registered association, the registered party becomes liable for the unpaid amount as if the association or party had guaranteed the loan.”
June 10, 2008 Passed That Bill C-29, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 29 to 35 on page 4 with the following: “case of a candidate, the selection date as defined in section 478.01 in the case of a nomination contestant, the end of the leadership contest in the case of a leadership contestant, and the end of the fiscal period during which the loan was made in the case of a registered party and registered association, is deemed to be a contribution of the”
June 10, 2008 Passed That Bill C-29, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 13 to 17 on page 2.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

June 16th, 2008 / 3:55 p.m.

Independent

Louise Thibault Independent Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is easy. I know exactly what the member is getting at: he is looking for an answer he can use.

I have always expressed my opinion publicly, whether to party officials or in my riding. I am against any kind of action that makes it appear as though people are taking advantage of money that, as I said, comes from public coffers, from taxpayers.

That is disgraceful in and of itself, regardless of the party involved. There could be as many as 150 registered parties in Canada. I have no idea. Provincially, in Quebec anyway, it is the same thing. It would be appalling to ask a party to spend as much as possible in such-and-such a riding when reimbursement is guaranteed because it will garner at least 10% of the vote.

To answer my colleague, it is unbelievable that any candidate representing a party in this House—Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat, Bloc or independent—would be unable to figure this out for him or herself, would fail to think this over and decide that it is not right, to realize that the money is not a gift from the gods, that taking money from fellow citizens and the general public simply should not be done.

Actually, there is a way to work it out without using the maximum allowed.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

June 16th, 2008 / 3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, you are an honourable man and I am just amazed that you would not let the member speak in committee because she is an independent. Does the member have some suggestions that she should at least have one out of three hundred and eighth of the amount time to be allowed to speak in committee?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

June 16th, 2008 / 3:55 p.m.

Independent

Louise Thibault Independent Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As I said earlier, and I have discussed this with several people, but many members in this House are not aware of the fact that members sitting as independents are not allowed to speak at committee, unless another member agrees to share his or her time with them. All they are allowed to do is sit at the table.

I suggest that the rules be changed. The parties should be able to reach an agreement. Similarly, when we rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House, we should not state that there is agreement among the parties. Everyone in this House should forget about the political parties and think instead of the other meaning of parties, or sides.

I can say that the four independent members of Parliament are merrily ignored by all parties. It is as if they did not exist, as if their consent was not required. So, from time to time, I make a point of rising to refuse consent, at which time I indicate that I was duly elected to this House, even though I left a party to sit as an independent member, as opposed to another member who was elected as an independent. I work as hard as my colleagues.

Every independent member should have speaking time both in the House and at committees. That is essential. We have things to do and things to say, and what we do is just as valuable as what our colleagues do. We bring grist to the mill. We are here to debate. A fine way to recognize that would be to give unanimous consent to allow independent members to speak at least three or four minutes every two hours of sitting time of a committee. That is not too much.

I expect my colleague from Yukon to make that suggestion to his party.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

June 16th, 2008 / 4 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

Is the House ready for the question?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

June 16th, 2008 / 4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

June 16th, 2008 / 4 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

June 16th, 2008 / 4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

June 16th, 2008 / 4 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

June 16th, 2008 / 4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

June 16th, 2008 / 4 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

June 16th, 2008 / 4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

June 16th, 2008 / 4 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The vote is postponed until tomorrow at 5:30 p.m.

The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans), be read the third time and passed.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

June 17th, 2008 / 5:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-29.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung

(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #157