Bill C-29 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to 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.

Canada Elections Act

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has given other examples to illustrate the situation I raised after the speech by my colleague from the NDP.

Yes, the bill is written in a way that does not correct this situation. Consequently, in a few years, we will be decrying situations such as the ones mentioned by my colleague.

It could happen that four or five people run in ridings where their party is not very popular, incur huge expenses and then their party will be responsible for the debt, even though it did not give permission in the first place.

I do not want to assume that any of the parties here in this House are dishonest, but this situation could happen and it could almost be deliberately planned. There would be no legal recourse to resolve this issue, other than proving that there was collusion to make it happen.

The Bloc Québécois proposed an improvement to the bill. It was supported in committee, but overturned in this House by the Conservatives, with the support of the NDP.

We will see, in the coming months and years, but we will likely end up having to come back and fix the legislation. But it will only be done once we are faced with an actual situation.

As my colleague said, it can apply to a party, but under the new legislation, it could also apply to registered riding associations, which generally have the same rights as a party. This could represent a very serious situation.

If a candidate spends $20,000, out of the entire budget of a Canada-wide party, it will certainly have an effect. However, if the candidate spends the money in a particular riding and the riding association becomes responsible for it, that could be catastrophic.

That is why we would have liked to see this flaw in the bill fixed, so that this does not happen in the future. Despite that, we think the bill deserves the support of the House. We will ensure that this situation is corrected in the future, if our concerns unfortunately become reality.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I heard the answer he just gave to the Liberal member. I do not want to ask him a trick question, but I would like him to elaborate on what he said. We know that the two main pillars of democracy are freedom of speech and transparency. Heaven knows the Conservatives have shown a total lack of transparency regarding several issues that normally should have been submitted to the House in a clear and precise manner. With regard to these two main pillars, can Bill C-29 be compatible with what the member said when we have to ensure that any person who wants to run for office has an equal chance, whether his or her party is strong or weak in the polls? I want to hear what he has to say on how we can reconcile these two concerns.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We have seen election practices systematically evolve towards this greater transparency over the last 50 years, first through the elimination of contributions to slush funds. Quebec did that 30 years or so ago. Indeed, since the 1970s, under Mr. Lévesque, only individuals, not entities, can make contributions to a political party. It took some time for the Parliament of Canada to pass similar legislation. We have it today but it still needs some polishing because, human nature being what it is, we have to ensure that the legislation does not open the door to improper practices.

As regards the right to speak, any citizen who wants to run in a federal election can do so, either as an independent member, or as a party member, with the pros and the cons related to each option. However, we must see that this can be done while ensuring that each party is given equal opportunities. This is what the whole legislation seeks to achieve. This is why I felt that this bill was missing a part that was necessary, namely to see that, when a candidate is authorized to run for a party, we must ensure, before that candidate spends money, that the party will not be responsible for his expenditures, and that there will not be any unintended commitment for that party.

Unfortunately, that could be part of an election strategy by a party, whereby that party would allow candidates from another party to run in regions where it has few candidates of its own and little chances of winning, and spend a lot of money, thus adversely affecting that party's finances.

All the bills that have been introduced over the past several years seek to improve transparency. We have now discovered a major problem, namely leadership campaigns. After reviewing the Canada Elections Act, we discovered that some strange things had taken place during leadership campaigns, both on the Liberal and the Conservative sides. We want to correct this situation, because we found out that the selection of a political party leader by party members also has an impact on democracy. I believe that making corrections in that regard would, as the hon. member said, improve the chances of voters making a choice that would be as transparent as possible and that would best reflect the democratic will.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the NDP to comment on Bill C-29. It is very appropriate because the NDP, in this corner of the House, has been the foremost advocate of smart and democratic grassroots election financing in Parliaments throughout Canadian history.

I am standing beside the member for Winnipeg Centre who has been a very strong advocate of accountability and has spoken in the House on this bill. It is important to note that the NDP has been walking the talk on democratic grassroots election financing since the very origins of our party back in 1960 and even before that with the CCF.

It is important to note that even in the fifties and sixties, big money essentially dominated Canadian politics because we did not have the kinds of limits around election financing that we find today. How did that happen? It was another minority Parliament from 1972-74. The NDP leader, David Lewis, essentially said that the minority Parliament could only continue if for the first time in Canadian history, election financing limits were put in, both in federal parties and also in constituencies. So that was a key point in Canadian history.

It essentially drew us away from the American model, and I will come back to that in a moment, where there are essentially no limits in election financing, where big money dominates, and brought a unique Canadian contribution to election financing law. That put in place the kinds of limits today that mean that ordinary working people can run for the House of Commons and not expect that they are going to be simply outspent by bankers and big business, that essentially there is an even playing field.

It is important to note that since that first election financing act was put into place, the NDP has had a lot more representation in the House of Commons. Ordinary working families have had a lot more representation. It is not a perfect system yet, and I will come back to that in a moment as well. But essentially, the 1972-74 period was a watershed for Canadian election financing laws.

Why is that important? We see in the United States how democracy plays out, that essentially in most campaigns, particularly at the national level, we see that millionaires get elected because there is no election financing legislation that caps the amount of money that people can spend in election campaigns. We hear about $20 million, $30 million, $40 million campaigns, millionaires stepping forward and basically taking money out of their piggy-bank and then running for public office.

As a result of that, we see that the institutions governed by that lack of respect for the democratic will and a lack of responsibility to assume that there is a level playing field means that legislation does not necessarily get adopted in the interests of ordinary working families.

Here in Canada, through the efforts of Tommy Douglas, we have a public health care system that is financed by public taxes and we have that in place in Canada as a result of the work of the CCF and the NDP. We are very proud of that. In the United States where big money dominates there is still a continued effort to put in place a public health care system; 60 million Americans will not have health coverage at some point in this year 2008 which means they are only a car accident or a fall away from perhaps going bankrupt because they have to pay for their medical costs that could be $100,000 or $200,000.

In Canada, in part because we have a more even playing field, we have been able to bring forward progressive social policy. Of course, the NDP and the CCF have been at the origin of every single progressive piece of legislation brought in for social policy since Confederation.

This brings us to Bill C-29. Essentially, what the NDP has endeavoured to do over the last 30 years is gradually ensure that the level playing field does not have the kinds of loopholes that the parties that tend to represent corporate CEOs tend to like to use. We see it all the time. We put in place legislation and rather than keeping to the principle, the Liberal and Conservative parties are trying to get around those loopholes because they believe big money should dominate politics.

What we are trying to do with Bill C-29, essentially, and what we proposed in the Federal Accountability Act, the wellspring of ideas that has brought about Bill C-29, is close the loophole, that has gradually been put into place over the 30 years since the first adoption of election financing caps, to ensure a party cannot get around the legislation. First there were election financing caps and subsequent to that big corporate donations were shut down.

I remember reading the election returns when I used to work at the NDP national office. At one cocktail party the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party would receive $50,000, $60,000, $100,000 from big banks and big oil companies. Essentially, that has been shut down. It is not in Canadians' interests to have corporate donations dominate the political field. We have had that put into place.

Bill C-29 would close another very important loophole. As soon as Parliament stopped the huge corporate donations that were going to political parties, one would assume political parties would have acted ethically and morally in respect to that legislation, but that did not happen. The Liberal Party found an interesting little loophole.

Under the existing legislation, if a corporate entity loans money to a political candidate or to a political party and that money is not paid back, it becomes a donation. That is an interesting little loophole. Beautiful. We outlaw corporate donations, but a corporate entity can loan money and forget to ask to have it paid back. It then becomes a donation, a direct contravention of the principle of the law that this Parliament put into place.

The NDP saw that loophole right away. We put it forward in the Federal Accountability Act. Ed Broadbent, the former member for Ottawa Centre and Oshawa, was the foremost proponent of that. The member for Winnipeg Centre as well. This loophole allowed largely Liberal members to get around the principle of the act. That brings us to where we are today.

In the most recent Liberal leadership campaign, hundreds of thousands of dollars were loaned to leadership candidates in what was a splurge of money to the Liberal leadership. There did not seem to be any sort of cap. In NDP leadership races, we ensure that there is a cap on leadership donations. People right across the country give small amounts. Some of our leadership candidates have done very well with those small amounts. In the case of the Liberal leadership race, big money came in again with big loans.

Bill C-29 tries to close that important loophole where big companies cannot donate, but they can loan the money and it becomes a donation later.

This is an important principle. What can we say about Quebec’s Election Act? It is one of the best provincial acts. It was not brought into force by a New Democratic government—at least not so far. We certainly hope to have a New Democratic government in Quebec some day.

In any event, Quebec has adopted this principle to ensure that no more than a modest amount can be spent. So you cannot spend $10,000 or $15,000 or $20,000 or $60,000. The limit is set at $3,000, which is more reasonable.

In Canada, as a result of measures adopted by the House a few years ago, a contributor may now give a political party a maximum of $1,100. This is an important factor.

In Quebec, we have in fact seen a change, an improvement, and this has changed the face of politics in Quebec. Since then, the rules of the game have really been more balanced, and there is more discussion of ideas.

The same thing happened in Manitoba. A system was adopted to limit the contributions people can make. There is a New Democratic government in power in Manitoba, and it is governed by that same principle.

This federal principle is therefore modelled on decisions that have already been made by the National Assembly of Quebec, the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, and other governments. It is an important Canadian principle that everyone supports. Playing a shell game to get around that principle is absolutely not in the interests of Canada.

That is the problem. We can play a shell game, because there is a way to get around the law. Since big corporations may not give money, what can they do? They can grant a loan, and later on it will become a donation.

It is hard to believe that a member of this House could object to that principle when he knows full well what progress has been made on this issue since the NDP forced the enactment of the first election spending limits, from 1972 to 1974, when we had a minority government. At that time, former NDP leader David Lewis said he wanted to establish a system that was fair to the families of working people.

Since then, we have seen progress that has allowed us to avoid the kind of activities and involvement we can see in the United States, where money buys seats in Congress and the Senate. Anyone representing working people is the exception. As a rule, representatives are millionaires, particularly in the Senate.

We do not want the same thing to happen in Canada. Certainly the House has millionaires, but there are growing numbers of members from ordinary families. The example we can cite is the fact that the NDP, which had barely a dozen members a few years ago, now has thirty.

We therefore see a net improvement in terms of members who come from more ordinary families, working families, the families that keep Canada moving. It is people from those families who built Canada and who continue to build it. It is important that these people be represented in the House of Commons. Our representatives must not be only bankers and corporate executives, they must also be the people who truly build the Canada they are part of.

What, then, is the position of the NDP on the amendments? We have had a number of good interventions on the issue. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the member for Winnipeg Centre have spoken to this issue.

The government has put forward three amendments at report stage. The first one would limit a person to a $1,000 loan per contest. In other words, it would reduce the amount to what is already in keeping with Canadian principles in the Elections Act to per person per contest rather than $1,000 per person per calendar year. We will be supporting that amendment.

The second amendment concerns when the three year payback period begins. We also support that amendment.

The third amendment, which we find difficult to support, is the idea that when the riding association undertakes, or a candidate or a campaign undertakes, a campaign loan, that campaign loan then reverts right back to the political party. It is a question of reasonableness.

Some campaigns can undertake their own loans right across the country. Every political party does. In the next election campaign, only two parties will be running everywhere in the country and in every region, the Prime Minister's Conservative Party and the member for Toronto—Danforth's New Democratic Party.

Everywhere in the country in the next election campaign people will have two choices, two very clear and differing views on the future of the country. I think we are seeing more and more interest in the NDP because people have seen the Prime Minister's vision and they are not quite sure they like it, particularly the corporate welfare provisions where the only thing that seems to be in Conservative budgets is tens of billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts just shovelled off the back of a truck.

The NDP has a vision that is much more in keeping with the values of Canadians, such as improving our health care system, actually dealing with the housing crisis and the homelessness crisis, and reinvesting in Canadian cities. All of those things most Canadian adhere to, but that is a little beyond the scope of the bill.

The point I am making is that in the next election campaign only two parties will be running in all 308 ridings. Other parties will be running in some ridings and not running in other ridings but only two parties will be running in all 308.

Once those candidates have deposited their nomination papers and have received the sign-off from the leader of the political party they are free to undertake loans on behalf of their campaign. They do not need to go to the national office of the political party to get approval for a loan, which is why we are opposed to this particular amendment. The amendment would mean that the political parties would suffer the consequences of a loan that a candidate and its official agent undertakes in the riding, whereas currently they are responsible for that, as they should be. They make the decisions on the ground to what extent they want to undertake a loan on behalf of their particular campaign and they have the responsibility to pay it off.

I have run in two federal campaigns and both of them were balanced budget campaigns. We feel very strongly about that. In fact, in the second campaign we did not need any loan at all because we received a lot of small contributions from people throughout the riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, which was great. However, if individuals must take out a loan, they should be responsible for it. It does not make sense that those individuals, if they run away from that loan, can simply see that loan transferred to the political party head office.

For the next campaign, for the two parties that are running full slates in every region across the country, the NDP and the Conservative Party, it will be extremely important that the local responsibility be maintained. Hopefully, the other parties that are running partial slates will be supportive of the NDP's position on this. However, for the two parties running the national campaign, running everywhere, particularly in their cases, it is important that responsibility stays with the local campaigns.

We have talked a bit about the origins of the election financing act and how things have evolved since then. The NDP has been the chief spokesperson and the principal advocate of putting into place election financing rules that are in keeping with the values that Canadians share from coast to coast to coast.

Canadians believe there needs to be a level playing field in a political contest and that everyone needs to have the same rules apply. They do not believe in loopholes. Therefore, when a Liberal Party member tries to move around the idea that we cannot have corporate financing by getting a loan and converting it into a donation, that is something that must be stopped. That is why we are supportive of this legislation and of most of the amendments.

We believe Canadians support the values of a level playing field, equal participation in politics and accessibility in politics so that an individual, a former manual labourer, can be active in his or her community, can run for political office and can actually be elected because the rules are such that it is a debate of values and ideas rather than simply a contest of who has the biggest wallet.

Speaking as a former manual labourer who is very proud to be in the House of Commons, our election financing act must do just that.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently as the member spoke and one thing that struck me was the apparent hypocrisy of his crying against the way that political parties collect money.

I personally believe that all money contributed to political parties should be from individuals who give of their own free accord.

I guess I should not say this because it is a dreadful thing to say publicly, but I have contributed a lot of money to the NDP, which I am sure the member is happy about, but I did so under coercion. I always had a job where I had compulsory union membership and the unions always supported the NDP with my money. I had no say in it.

I remember one time challenging one of the union bosses on this. I asked him why I had to contribute money to a political party that I was campaigning against. He said that it had been done democratically, that a convention was held and that through a vote it was decided that $100,000 would be given to the provincial NDP and $150,000 to the federal NDP. The union bosses just had a convention among themselves and decided that was how they would spend my money.

I would like the member's reaction to that particular scene.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for those school children watching today, they just had the definition of the term “red herring”. The hon. member knows very well that under the Elections Act a union cannot donate money in a federal election. There is no opportunity for corporate donations nor union donations.

For those listening, a red herring is something that has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to what is being discussed in the House of Commons. A union cannot donate money, neither at the constituency level nor at the federal party level, and the member knows this. I guess he thought it would be a trick question or that we would not be well-informed but members of this House of Commons know that what he just asked as a question is a red herring because it cannot be done.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. He always has some interesting comments and at times is actually entertaining.

I am sure there is going to be support for this bill, but there are still some points of concern. One of the areas has to do with where a loan is not repaid within the 18 months, et cetera. Some exceptions were noted: one, if the loan is subject to a binding agreement to pay; two, if it is subject to a legal proceeding; third, if it is subject to a dispute as to the amount; or four, if the amount has been written off by the lender as uncollectable. When we have a number of conditions in which a loan may not in fact be handled in the anticipated fashion because it is a bad debt, if we have made a list, then something must be left out. It really should be a blanket provision.

I am wondering whether or not the legislation ought not to have included a proviso that every legal avenue and effort had been taken to recover the loan. Once we start making other parties responsible or not accountable for their legal obligation and their agreement to the terms of the loan, it tends to fuzzy up the legislation.

Someone is going to say that there must have been some connection, or there may have been a quid pro quo that we did not know about. How do we police these kinds of things? How can we ensure that the intent of the law in fact is followed through? We have seen a lot of very strange and creative things happen. The in and out scandal is certainly an interesting one. Although it is not with regard to a candidate directly, it does have to do with candidates who are asked to participate in a matter related to the operations of an election campaign.

The member may have some comments.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. There are five minutes left in this question cycle and there are two other members who want to ask questions.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to their questions. I hope they will not be red herrings. I hope they will be legitimate questions.

The member for Mississauga South asked, as he always does, an intelligent question about the impact of that third amendment. The problem the member mentioned is why we are essentially opposing it. Because there would be a transfer to the political head office, to the political headquarters, it does not allow for the candidate's official agent in the riding to essentially take responsibility for the loan and pay it down. That is a problem with the amendment the government is proposing. There is not the legal weight to ensure that at the constituency level that loan is paid off.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member for Burnaby—New Westminster will come after a comment and a brief reminder.

When he says that the NDP's position with regard to the Canada Elections Act is forward-looking and when he cites Quebec's legislation as an example, he is absolutely right. Quebec's legislation has been in use for 30 years now and it has produced results in terms of cleaning up political contributions.

I want to know if he can lift the fog that rolled in with his remarks.

The NDP member for Windsor—Tecumseh told us earlier that he was not overly concerned about the fact that the party will be liable for a debt incurred by a candidate who is unable to repay that debt, because if a candidate has little chance of being elected, it is very likely that banks will not give him or her a loan. Therefore, he thinks that asking the party to be liable for those debts is not really a problem.

However, in his remarks, this member shared our position, and our concern deals with the fact that a candidate who is unable to pay off a loan can force his or her party to take on that responsibility.

I would ask the member to clarify for us his party's position on this issue.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear. The third amendment would essentially mean that if a loan contracted by a local candidate or an official agent is not paid, it falls to the party headquarters.

We are opposed to this amendment for the reasons just stated. It puts all of the responsibility on the political party even though it may not have approved loans contracted in the ridings.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-29.

I am shocked by my colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster's response to my colleague for Chambly—Borduas in terms of a party's responsibility for loans contracted by candidates. My colleague just said that he was not in favour of this third amendment. I should point out that the amendments to the bill before us are a direct result of the NDP's change in position.

I do not necessarily want to dump on the NDP. We agree on certain things, but not in terms of this bill. There was a prior agreement. Given that I sit on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I succeeded in getting this amendment in order to withdraw this provision. It has now returned to the bill, which means that the responsibilities and debts contracted by local candidates will become the responsibility of the party in the case of insolvency.

I am on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, a committee which is incidentally inoperative at the moment. A Conservative colleague was elected to replace the chair and member for Cambridge, whom a majority of the members had to kick out. Apparently he was not doing his job properly and impartially. A new chair was elected. Unfortunately this new chair resigned, and this means that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, because of the Conservatives, is inoperative.

On reading the bill, I noted this problem. I agree that a local candidate has a party banner to defend. Still, in the case of the Bloc Québécois, there are 75 ridings. There are more in the case of the so-called “national” parties. The Bloc Québécois is the national party of Quebeckers. We run candidates in the 75 ridings of Quebec. When we talk about 308 ridings and 308 Conservative, Liberal or New Democratic candidates, there is a coordination problem. How do we find out what is happening at the local level? An ill-advised candidate could make excessive, extravagant, totally crazy and inappropriate expenditures. I would even go so far as to say that he might exceed the limit provided for.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, somebody keeps yapping and that is distracting me. I realize that you yourself are so distracted that you cannot take down any notes about my speech.

So there could be a breach of the spending limit. The party might not know anything about it but would be responsible for the expenditures of this insolvent person. That is the point of this amendment. I have difficulty seeing the logic of my colleagues from the other parties.

That being said, I consider that we are democrats in the Bloc Québécois, and we will acknowledge the democratic decision of the House. Allow me, however, to express some misgivings that I have.

With regard to the general thrust of Bill C-29, the Bloc Québécois remains in favour of it on the third reading. We consider that it contains some interesting, though perfectible elements, given that by definition perfection does not exist in this lowly world.

We are in favour of it for two main reasons. First of all, we think that it is necessary to provide a framework for loans so as to avoid people getting around the spending limits. We realize this on analyzing certain leadership races, among both the Conservatives and the Liberals.

For example, the member for Toronto Centre, the new Liberal Party critic for foreign affairs, apparently received loans totalling $705,000, including a loan from his brother, John Rae, a former vice-president of Power Corporation, for $580,000 at 5% interest. He apparently lent himself $125,000.

The same goes for the current opposition leader, who is supposed to have received loans totalling $655,000 from various people: Mamdouh Stephanos, Marc de la Bruyere, Stephen Bronfman, Roderick Bryden, Christopher Hoffmann. In all, they amount to $655,000.

Since we are including everyone, the current Prime Minister still refuses to reveal who his contributors were during his run for party leadership in 2002. He refers us the web site of the party once called the Canadian Alliance. That party has changed names many times. First it was the Reform Party, then the Canadian Alliance, and now the Conservative Party. It reminds me of the new Coke: it is the same recipe, but in an improved version. It is actually quite confusing.

In any case, a Globe and Mail article on October 2, 2002, revealed that the current Prime Minister spent $1.1 million on his leadership campaign in 2002. According to the article, the Prime Minister said he had posted a partial list of his contributors on the Canadian Alliance web site, but in fact only those who contributed more than $1,075 were listed. Thus, there are many grey areas.

As for election spending limits regarding contributions from individuals, we know that corporate financing is no longer allowed. We support this. Such limits have always been a traditional demand of the Bloc Québécois, that is, since 1993, for one simple, good reason. The Act to govern the financing of political parties has been in force in Quebec since 1977 and has proven effective. It has helped clean up political and electoral funding practices.

I can still vividly recall former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien paying homage to the legacy of René Lévesque, who gave us Quebec's act respecting elections and referendums in municipalities and the referendum act, among others. I am sure it was not easy for Jean Chrétien to pay homage to René Lévesque.

It is not necessarily logical, and certainly not every day, that Mr. Chrétien would pay tribute to René Lévesque.

That is basically what I wanted to say in my allotted time. Question time is approaching, and I am sure that some of my colleagues have some interesting questions for me. I will be pleased to answer them to the best of my knowledge and abilities. I want to stress that we still support this bill, and that we will likely vote in favour of it.

However, we see some serious problems with the fact that parties are responsible for expenses incurred by candidates at the local level. It should be a given that when someone agrees to run for a particular political party, that individual takes responsibility for his or her own expenses.

It is also important to remember that election campaigns are fast-paced. People who work on an election campaign have a hectic life from morning to night, and that includes the researchers who work nights. It is seven days a week. It is not always possible for all expenses to receive approval from senior party officials. That could mean that, although the party has nothing to do with the expense, it could end up being responsible, which does not make sense and is completely unacceptable.

But regardless, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill overall.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue a point that I raised earlier. It has to do with loans by a financial institution to a candidate. The deemed contributions provisions under 405.7 stipulates that the loan must be repaid by three years. However, if the amount has not been paid, there are four conditions under which it would be a deemed contribution. One of those is the loan has been written off by the lender as an uncollectable debt in accordance with the lender's normal accounting practices.

If that is the case, where there is a deemed contribution, a bank could loan $50,000 to a campaign, write it off and it becomes a deemed contribution. I did not think that was really the intent. I am not sure if I missed something in the legislation, but it would appear there would be a way in which banks could effectively contribute to candidates when corporate and union donations would be prohibited under previous changes to the act.

This concerns me, along with the issue that the loans or debts incurred by a candidate would ultimately turn out to be the responsibility of a riding association or a political party if they were unpaid. The member may have—