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.

The House proceeded to the 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.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-29. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-29, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 13 to 17 on page 2.

Motion No. 2

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”

Motion No. 3

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.”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be bringing before the House once again the bill on accountability with respect to loans, former Bill C-54 now Bill C-29, which was reinstated at report stage, in the same form as at prorogation.

The hon. members will certainly recall that this bill amends the Canada Elections Act in order to establish stricter and more transparent rules for loans to political entities. These amendments will ensure a more responsible and transparent use of loans as a tool for political financing. In this regard, accountability and transparency are essential to maintain the confidence of Canadians in the integrity of the political process.

This bill is one of many measures taken by our government to improve democracy and accountability in Canada, in accordance with three major principles of democratic reform: reform of political financing, improving the electoral system and modernizing the Senate.

In the October 2007 throne speech, the government reaffirmed its intention to proceed with these reforms. Our dynamic legislative program of democratic reforms will make real and significant improvements to our democratic institutions.

I remind the House that the amendments proposed for the treatment of loans in Bill C-29 are an important measure to maintain public confidence in this institution and our democracy.

Canadians must have confidence that there is no opportunity for the wealthy to secure undue influence in our political process.

The measures in Bill C-29 follow closely on this government's achievements in the Federal Accountability Act to ensure greater accountability and transparency in political financing. The objective was to eliminate the undue influence of big money in politics.

Members will recall, however, that during the recent Liberal leadership campaign big money found a back door to undue influence through large personal loans well in excess of the legal contribution limit.

The amendments would mean that the same standards of transparency that currently apply to contributions would apply to loans.

By closing the loopholes that allow people to use loans to get around both the limits on contributions and the restrictions on their source, Bill C-29 will ensure that the reforms that have already been made to political contributions cannot be undermined by the abuse of loans.

I would like to remind the House of the measures that are included in this bill. First, the bill would put in place a uniform and transparent disclosure system for all loans to political entities, including the compulsory disclosure of loans' terms and conditions and of lenders' and guarantors' names. This measure would make loans more transparent and standardize the treatment of loans for all categories of political entity, which is not the case at present.

Second, the annual contribution limit for individuals established in the Federal Accountability Act would apply to loans as well. Loans and loan guarantees would be counted as contributions toward the $1,100 annual limit at the time they were made. This change would ensure that loans could not be used to circumvent the limit on individual contributions.

Third, only financial institutions and other political entities could make loans beyond that $1,100 limit. This change would mean that unions and corporations would now be unable to make loans consistent with their inability to make financial contributions. They could not disguise contributions as loans, which is a possibility under the current law.

Lastly—and I will come back to the importance of this proposal shortly—the bill proposes to tighten the rules for the treatment of unpaid loans to ensure candidates could not walk away from unpaid loans. Riding associations, or the guarantor if there is no riding association, would be held responsible for unpaid loans taken out by candidates.

In the previous session, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs devoted careful study to the provisions of this bill and, after recent deliberations, has reported it back to the House with amendments.

Several of these amendments are valuable additions to the rules governing the treatment of loans, because they make the system described in the bill more equitable.

Notably, a change has been put forward by government members and supported by our opposition counterparts to exclude from the annual contribution limit any portion of a loan that is repaid to the lender and any unused loan guarantees. The effect of this change is to allow a lender, whose loan has been repaid or whose guarantees have been unused, still to contribute up to the annual contribution limit.

A change has also been put forward by our former colleague from Vancouver--Quadra, Mr. Owen, to require the Chief Electoral Officer to hear representations from affected interests before making a determination about a deemed contribution. This change, although technical in nature, would ensure certainty and uniformity in procedural fairness in dealings with Elections Canada.

There was also an amendment to extend the period of time as to when an unpaid loan is deemed to be a contribution from 18 months up to 3 years. In the spirit of working in a minority Parliament, the government is also prepared to accept this amendment.

I commend these amendments to the House on the grounds that they improve the overall regime of political financing in the Canada Elections Act.

However, there were some unwelcome amendments from the committee.

At this time, I would like to give some credit to my colleague, the New Democratic Party member from Winnipeg Centre. He has been a strong supporter of this legislation and, in fact, championed it even before it was introduced. We appreciate the cooperation he has shown with us in helping to develop the bill and discussing it at every stage. In particular, I appreciate his cooperation and discussion on the issue of redressing the two unwelcome amendments that were proposed in committee but which the government proposes to reverse.

I thank him for the commitment he gave to this government that his party would support the effort to remove these amendments. These amendments cause the government concern because they undermine the regime that is presented in the bill. Therefore, we have put on notice, motions to amend the bill to restore certain important provisions that have been undermined by opposition amendments.

One of these unwelcome amendments provides that the contribution limits for leadership candidates be calculated annually rather than per contest, as is now the case. This change, if it were allowed, would allow contributors to bypass the legal limit on contributions to leadership campaigns if a candidate carried that debt over different calendar years or if the leadership campaign happened to overlap different calendar years.

That runs counter to the principle enacted in the Federal Accountability Act that contributions to leadership campaigns by individuals be capped at $1,100 per contest. The government considers this change unacceptable and proposes that the per event contribution limit be restored.

I appreciate again the support that the member for Winnipeg Centre has expressed to us on behalf of his party for that amendment. We are optimistic that, with the support of the New Democratic Party, we should be successful in restoring the provisions originally intended to achieve accountability and political loans on that level.

The second unwelcome amendment removed from the bill is the provision that a riding association would assume liability for the unpaid loans of an endorsed candidate. The change proposed by the opposition would allow political candidates to walk away from debts incurred in campaigns. This is contrary to the spirit of accountability in the bill.

This proposed opposition change would undo one of the most important accountability enhancements presented by the government for the treatment of loans, an enhancement that would create greater certainty about the responsibility for unpaid loans.

The original form of the bill, which we are seeking to restore, not only would ensure principles of financial accountability at the local level, but would also encourage local riding associations to work more closely with their candidates and their campaigns. Again, I appreciate the support and the commitment that the New Democratic Party member gave on behalf of his party to the government and to myself for our efforts to restore the bill to its original form on this issue of trailing debt from campaigns.

A similar rule applies at the provincial level of my home province of Ontario. Section 44(4) of the Ontario Election Finances Act provides that any eventual provincial candidate's financial deficit is assumed by the local riding association. This has worked very well in Ontario at the provincial level, and opposition concerns, which resulted in the provision being amended in our bill at committee, are clearly ill-founded based on the very successful practice experienced by all of the three major parties in Ontario in dealing with the bill.

The government is, therefore, proposing to restore the provision that a candidate's registered association, or registered party if there is no registered riding association, would become liable for the unpaid amount of a loan that a candidate does not repay.

Finally, I would like to point out that there is a technical amendment required to clause 5 of the bill. That clause was amended at committee and the language employed about when a loan is deemed to be a contribution ought to be made consistent with the defined terms used throughout the Canada Elections Act. We are, therefore, proposing that the language be clarified.

In all, these are amendments that are reasoned and principled and serve the overriding principle that accountability be strengthened for the use of loans as a political financing tool.

We are committed to cleaning up campaign finance. We are going to move to do that as we move forward--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see how the two concepts of conduct and accountability get confused in the House. The government has stood on its hind legs and has spoken at length about accountability through its so-called accountability bill, but that bill had everything to do with conduct.

The government House leader across the way likes to use the term “accountability” with respect to this. We are all in favour of increasing transparency and accountability in the electoral process. In fact, ours was the party that made the largest ever decrease in and restriction of funding and donations to electoral parties and from individuals in the history of this Parliament.

Could the government House leader define for the House what he means by public accountability?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very broad question, but in the case of the legislation at hand, which deals with political financing, what we are seeking to do in the case of riding associations and local candidates is make those candidates accountable for the debts they incur. This is something that the Liberal Party, believe it or not, objected to at the committee and brought in an amendment to eliminate.

The Liberals propose that a candidate should be able to run up debts, collect loans, have unpaid bills and then simply walk away from them and be able to do that legally. The candidate should be able, they propose, to convert those loans, whatever their quantity, and walk away. It could be a loan for $50,000 or $60,000, which would of course convert a loan into a contribution well above the legal limit. They are proposing an amendment to allow exactly that to happen.

We do not believe that should happen. We think accountability means that when we take on an expense, we pay it. It means that when we take on a debt, we pay it and we are responsible for it.

That is true accountability. That is why we want to get rid of the amendment that the Liberal Party supported and introduced to eliminate that accountability for one's trailing debts at the riding level. We wish to maintain that accountability in our bill.

It is a principle of fiscal responsibility. It is a principle of honouring one's word. It is the least we can expect of the people who seek to represent Canadians in this grand place, the House of Commons.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

That is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. This is a fascinating discussion. I mean that in a very constructive sense for the government House leader. The hon. government House leader did not talk about accountability at all. He was speaking about public conduct. He was talking about conduct, not public accountability.

Public accountability is the obligation of elected officials to tell the public what they are doing, why they are doing it, and who is going to benefit from it, and to have measurable standards upon which the person can be judged by what he or she is going to do. This is done before we actually implement something. That is public accountability, because within public accountability we actually have an internal mechanism for conduct.

If the government were to adopt true public accountability and make it the obligation of public office holders to freely and openly express and describe to the public what they are going to do before they do it and who is going to benefit, then true public accountability and conduct would be the extension of that.

I want to ask the hon. House leader if he would change his definition. Does he not agree with me on--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Minister for Democratic Reform.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to me it seems quite clear. Being accountable for our debts means that we pay them. I think everybody understands that. That is common sense. There may be some other bureaucratic approach to things, but that is a very simple premise.

In terms of public policy and being accountable, I think Canadians want their politicians, their representatives in the House of Commons, to be accountable primarily and first and foremost to the people who elected them, not to people with huge sums of money, who can, with millions of dollars, make loans in excess of the legal limit for contributions to Liberal leadership candidates, effectively mortgaging them.

That happened a year ago in that Liberal leadership campaign. So their first responsibility is not to Canadians and not to the voters who put them there, but rather to the people to whom they owe hundreds of thousands of dollars individually and millions of dollars collectively. That was the situation in the Liberal Party after the last leadership campaign because this law still had a loophole in it, which we are seeking to address today.

When I talk about accountability to Canadians, I think that first and foremost they want to see us get rid of the undue influence of big money in our political financing system. Progress has been made. We have serious contribution limits. We got rid of corporate contributions and so on.

However, as we discovered in the Liberal leadership campaign, there is big money and the Liberal Party members could find a way to play that game in the past under the current law. They did it through large personal loans. We are going to get rid of that and have true accountability, where votes and Canadians matter, not big money.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party supports efforts to improve the transparency and accountability of the electoral process. Early on, our party was the one that passed the bill to limit the role of corporations and unions in election financing. We also initiated the most significant contribution limit reduction in Canadian history.

That is why Liberal party leadership candidates exceeded Elections Canada's requirements to disclose campaign loans. In contrast, the current Prime Minister is still refusing to disclose the names of those who contributed to his leadership campaign in 2002.

In practice, this legislation would give the last word to financial institutions, not Canadians, when it comes to deciding who can run for office in Canada. This bill would also have a negative impact on Canada's middle class, particularly nomination contestants, at a time when the government should be encouraging Canadians to increase their participation in the democratic process.

If the proposed changes are implemented, it will be very difficult for Canadians, particularly those with limited means who know few wealthy potential backers, to try to get elected in Canada because it is hard to get a loan from a financial institution. Even though we are in favour of a transparent and accountable electoral process, we believe that this bill unduly restricts Canadians' access to the democratic system and that it will prevent them from participating in it.

The Conservatives would have us believe that current legislation enables individuals to walk away from debts. Nothing could be further from the truth. Under the current legislation, individuals cannot use loans to bypass contribution limits, nor can they walk away from debts with impunity. The bill merely reiterates existing provisions. The Conservatives think they can fool Canadians into believing that this bill in some way makes significant changes to the law.

For the record, the official purpose of this bill is to reduce the possibility of undue influence in public life by wealthy interest groups. Obviously, this bill was developed to put the Liberal Party of Canada at a financial disadvantage. The main consequence of this new bill is that it severely restricts the opportunities for people running for office to take out loans, a common practice in the past. The proposed legislation would prohibit individuals from making a loan or guaranteeing a loan to political candidates by restricting contributions to the $1,100 limit currently in the Federal Accountability Act.

Furthermore, as in the Federal Accountability Act, unions and corporations cannot make a loan to political candidates, parties or associations. Of course, the government claims that the purpose of this measure is to reduce the influence of wealthy financial contributors, who apparently used personal loans to bypass the restrictions on donations in the Elections Act.

The fact of the matter is that during our last leadership campaign, all the candidates publicly disclosed all the loans they had received for their campaign and went above and beyond what was required by Elections Canada. If this bill is passed, only political parties such as the Liberal Party of Canada or local riding associations and financial institutions will be able to make loans to candidates, and it must be at the market interest rate.

There are also new disclosure criteria, requiring that all conditions such as the amount, rate, lender's name and address, and the guarantor's name and address, if applicable, be disclosed.

If the Chief Electoral Officer determines that an unpaid amount of a loan to a candidate of a registered party has been written off, the registered association or, if there is no registered association, the registered party becomes liable for the unpaid amount as if the association, or the party, had guaranteed the loan.

The minister referred to the changes in this regard. I should remind the House that, when it met last spring to consider the bill, numbered C-54 at the time, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs agreed by a majority vote to amend the government's proposal, to ensure that debts incurred by candidates without the consent of their associations or parties not come back to haunt the associations or parties. A majority of the committee did not want this to happen.

Unsatisfied with this majority decision of the committee, the government is now changing the wording of the bill to make this undesirable situation possible again.

The original text of Bill C-29 read, on page 5, lines 32 and 33, “the claimant, the candidate's registered association or, if there is no registered association, the registered party.” It said that these parties shall be informed. Today, the government is seeking to amend lines 32 and 33. At line 32, it is keeping the word “claimant”, but replacing the comma with a semicolon followed by “the registered association or, if there is no registered association, the registered party”, and it adds: “becomes liable for the unpaid amount as if the association or party had guaranteed the loan.”

This reversal of the reversal adopted by the majority in committee in the spring is unacceptable in that the association—or, if applicable, the party—would be held responsible for a loan without previous knowledge of it, without having guaranteed the loan, and without having been informed that the loan was contracted. A national association—or a national party—could quite easily end up in a situation whereby a candidate, without consent from the association or the party, could incur personal debts, under the pretext that it is for an election campaign. Then the party—or the association—without warning, would be responsible for paying back the loan. It is very difficult to accept that part.

There is also the matter of financing leadership races. The minister was honest. He bluntly said that instead of allowing citizens to participate by making contributions on an annual basis, as long as the loan has not been paid back in full, citizens should instead make a single contribution for a maximum of $1,100. The legislation prevents them from participating any more than that in leadership race financing.

Since I do not have very much time left, I want to say that although we are in favour of having a transparent and accountable electoral process, we believe that this bill unduly limits Canadians' access to the democratic system and that it will impede their participation.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, not being a member of the committee, I would ask the member to outline in more detail what items the majority of the committee actually approved democratically and the government is now trying to retract.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the major change would be in Motion No. 3, the amendment, where the original wording on page 5, lines 33, 34, and 35, says:

--the Chief Electoral Officer shall inform the claimant, the candidate's registered association or, if there is no registered association, the registered party of his or her decision.

Now the Conservatives have changed it and it says:

[Then the Chief Electoral] 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.

This is exactly the point where, in committee, opposition parties underlined the fact that even though the association or the party would not have guaranteed the loan, they would end up with the liability. They would end up having to repay that loan which, as I have mentioned before, they had never approved of, or for all we know, maybe never even had knowledge of.

The majority of the committee voted on this and it was agreed that this was unfair for the association and the national parties, and therefore, it was amended in committee, so that this particular debt would not turn back to the association or the party.

The other change done at committee dealt with financial contributions during a leadership campaign. I said at the start of my presentation that this particular piece of legislation is most certainly going to give the Liberal Party of Canada a hard time. We are the party that had a leadership race. We were the party that had to answer to the new law in the sense that we had to disclose all the contributions, whereas the present Prime Minister did not disclose all of the contributions that were received for his leadership campaign.

The Conservative government is trying to force leadership candidates to limit financial contributions to a maximum amount of $1,100, saying that a leadership race is one event and it would limit the financial participation to $1,100 per that event. At committee we discussed this and it was agreed that it would become a financial contribution of $1,100 per year until the debt of the leadership candidate had been fully erased.

Now the Conservatives are reversing the reversal that had been done and they are planning on saying that, no, in a leadership race it does not matter how long it takes to reimburse, there would be one contribution per leadership race to a maximum of $1,100.

These are the two major differences between what the procedure and House affairs committee had worked on and decided back in the spring of 2007. Now the Conservative government is saying it does not care what the majority of the committee decided democratically, it is ready to impose and change it so that it would be brought back to the original version of the bill. I do not think that this is right.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate on a bill that aims to correct another problem with the Federal Accountability Act. I would remind this House that when Bill C-2 was studied, the government was interested in passing the bill quickly, an attitude that we in the opposition parties, the media and Democracy Watch criticized.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-29 in principle, because it addresses the problem of loans that allowed individuals to bypass political contribution restrictions. In fact, Bill C-29 fills the gaps the government left in studying Bill C-2, which contains little protection for whistleblowers and does nothing to improve the Access to Information Act.

Quebeckers have long understood the importance of having clear, reliable rules on financing political organizations. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-29 in principle, because it should prevent people from getting around the financing rules, especially as regards contribution limits.

I want to stress that the Bloc Québécois fought long and hard for these limits. Inspired by the system that has been in place in Quebec for 30 years, we called on the government to put an end to financing by companies and limit individual contributions. Bill C-29 incorporates the only change proposed by the Bloc Québécois when Bill C-54 was studied in committee. Then, we decried the fact that the political party was held responsible for its candidates' debts, even if the party was not a party to the contract between the individual and his or her financial institution.

I must say that I am extremely disappointed that the government is refusing to comply with the committee's decision on this. Although the current government wants to demonstrate good faith and sincerity, the fact remains that its intentions are not really genuine. In fact, the Conservatives are using this bill to point out that during the most recent Liberal leadership race, several candidates took out big loans to bypass financing restrictions. Yet the Conservatives are forgetting that the Prime Minister himself has not disclosed all of the contributions he received during the 2002 leadership race.

If the Conservatives think they can pass themselves off as the champions of transparency and the standard bearers of ethics, I must remind them of a few facts that might force them to reconsider. We all remember, as does the public, all the back and forth between political offices and lobbying firms, the contracts awarded to political friends, the use of public funds for partisan purposes, the many partisan appointments, the appointments of judges and immigration commissioners, that is, to the IRB, on the basis of their political beliefs, and the publication of a guide intended for Conservative members who chair committees that lists every possible, imaginable measure to obstruct the work of committees.

Bill C-29 aims to correct the problem of loans used to circumvent the limits on contributions paid to political parties, but certain problems remain. Whistleblower protection comes to mind. During the election campaign, the Conservatives promised to guarantee whistleblowers greater protection. They wanted to “ensure that whistleblowers would have access to adequate legal counsel”. Yet the Conservatives' bill allows for only $1500 in legal fees.

They also wanted “to give the public sector integrity commissioner the power to enforce the whistleblower legislation”. They wanted “to guarantee protection to all Canadians who report wrongdoing within the government, not just to public servants”. Furthermore, they wanted “to take away the government's ability to exempt crown corporations and other entities from the application of the whistleblower legislation”.

In the recent sponsorship scandal, one of the whistleblowers, Allan Cutler, a Conservative Party candidate in the 2006 election, I should mention, was somewhat critical of Bill C-2. He maintained that Bill C-2 was far from perfect and had some problems that needed fixing, especially with respect to the provisions for protecting whistleblowers.

On April 5, 2005, the Liberal government released a discussion paper on reforming the Access to Information Act. This document met with general criticism. In addition to doubling the minimum administrative fees charged to the public, the proposal by the member for LaSalle—Émard, maintained all the exceptions provided for in the legislation.

If the Liberal Party never managed to bring about any useful reform of access to information in 13 years, the Conservative government, despite its election promise, did not do any better. We are still waiting for this reform.

The public knows that once in power, the Conservatives and the Liberals are not in such a hurry to reform the legislation. The information commissioner recently observed that this is a common trait in all governments:

The reason that action, not more study, is required is that governments continue to distrust and resist the Access to Information Act and the oversight of the Information Commissioner.

With regard to the lack of transparency in election financing, we can see that the Liberals and the Conservatives are equals. What is the Prime Minister waiting for to disclose all the contributions he received during the 2002 Canadian Alliance leadership race? The public must know that the Prime Minister admitted, in December 2006, that he failed to disclose to the Chief Electoral Officer that he had received hundreds of thousands of dollars. The money consisted of registration fees collected from Conservative delegates attending the Conservative Party's May 2005 convention. The party was forced to treat convention registration fees as donations. The report indicated that three delegates, including the Prime Minister, had exceeded their annual contribution limit of $5,400 to the party.

At the very least, the Conservative government is a government susceptible to powerful influences. The Prime Minister, when he was leader of the opposition, reprimanded the Liberals for the comings and goings between political offices and lobbying firms. Yet, since taking power he has done no better.

To summarize, the bill establishes a standard and transparent reporting system for all loans made to political entities, requiring the mandatory disclosure of the terms of these loans as well as the identity of the lenders and guarantors.

The bill would prohibit all unions and corporations not only from making contributions, in accordance with the Federal Accountability Act, but also from lending money.

Loans, loan guarantees and contributions from individuals could not exceed the limit set out in the Federal Accountability Act, which is $1,100 for 2007.

Only financial institutions, at market interest rates, or other political entities would be able to lend money exceeding that amount. The rules for unpaid loans would be tightened so that candidates could not default on their obligations.

Loans not repaid within 18 months would be considered a political contribution.

Riding associations, or where there are none, the parties themselves, would be held responsible for their candidate's unpaid loan.

For all these reasons, we support the principle of this bill but we truly hope that motion no. 3 will be defeated.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment on the amendments that are coming forward at this time from committee, the ones that have been accepted by the government and the ones that have been rejected.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment I am most concerned about is the one in lines 29 and 30. It would make a party or other unregistered association responsible for candidates' loans. A candidate could decide to borrow money without informing the party, without the party's knowledge. Later, if the candidate failed to repay the loan—no matter what the reason—the party or the unregistered association would be responsible for the debt. I find that unacceptable.

When the committee discussed this liability issue, which could hurt the party or even jeopardize it, we all agreed that parties should not be liable for debts incurred by candidates.

I am therefore extremely disappointed that the government refused to go along with this.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that the Prime Minister refused to say who the donors were in his leadership campaign. Is that true? Was the Prime Minister actually asked to outline these? That would seem to be normal accountability.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 2, 2002, the Globe and Mail revealed that the current Prime Minister raised $1.1 million for his leadership race in 2002. According to the article, the Prime Minister quietly published a partial list of contributors on the Alliance's website. The list only includes contributions in excess of $1,075.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, does my hon. colleague think there are a couple of misleading aspects that the Conservative government is pushing forward with respect to this bill? I will refer to the two most misleading ones.

The government is suggesting that under the current law regarding political financing, loans are allowed to be made in secret so Canadians are kept in the dark, when the reality is that under the current law the details of all loans must be publicly disclosed.

Does the member not agree that under the current law, not the proposed law but the current law, loans cannot be used to avoid donation limits and they cannot be written off without consequences?

Does she not agree that the status quo with respect to the law is actually very good at ensuring transparency for the public?

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The member for Drummond has one minute to respond.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-29, loans, guarantees and contributions from individuals could not exceed the limit set out in the Federal Accountability Act, $1,100 in 2007. Only financial institutions—at commercial interest rates—and other political entities would be allowed to lend amounts exceeding that amount. The rules governing unpaid loans would be strengthened to prevent candidates from walking away from their debts.

We agree with these provisions. Quebeckers have always wanted this legislation to be as transparent as possible. We think that the way we do things in Quebec—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time has run out.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP caucus, I am very pleased to join the debate on Bill C-29.

Let me say at the outset that I support the content of Bill C-29. I should point out that it finds its origins in a motion put forward by the New Democratic Party on the Federal Accountability Act which, sadly, failed at the time, but the government revisited the issue and saw fit to introduce the same subject matter in a separate bill. That bill is the one before us today.

We should start with the basic premise that nobody should be able to buy an election in this country. In fact, nobody should be able to buy a politician in this country. We should take whatever measures necessary to take big money out of politics for all the reasons that should be self-evident to those of us in the chamber today or anybody watching.

We only need to look south of the border to see how big money can undermine democracy. I do not want to cast any aspersions on the character of politicians there, but I would point out that it takes a couple of million dollars now to run in any credible way for a seat in Congress. Surely, people can see that if people have to start their political careers owing $2 million, it can, and I am not saying it does but it can, influence the way people make public policy. That is something we want to avoid in this country.

This bill also asks another question, and that is, when is a loan not a loan? I would put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if a loan is never repaid, it is not really a loan anymore. It is a donation. That is the way Elections Canada views loans that are not repaid. If they are not repaid in 18 months, they become donations.

If a loan is larger than the amount people are allowed to donate and 18 months later it becomes a donation, they have made an illegal donation. There is a contradiction in our election financing laws that cries out to be addressed. This bill does just that.

Looking at the origins and history of this bill, I would like to recognize and pay tribute to the former leader of the New Democratic Party, who most recently sat as the member for Ottawa Centre, Ed Broadbent. A seven part ethics package was put together by Mr. Broadbent which became part of the NDP election campaign platform. It dealt specifically with the idea of election financing loans being problematic in our election financing system. The reason he was seized with the issue at that time is that we all observed the Liberal leadership race.

We became aware that even though the donation limits governing leadership races and other political events were quite rigid, because the very rules the Liberals established placed pretty serious limits on how much could be donated, the loans that were being made were massive. One person alone, the former NDP premier of Ontario, had $720,000 worth of loans from his brother, the executive vice-president of Power Corp. That loan would have to be repaid in accordance with the donation limits, which today would be $1,100 per person per year. We did not see how that was possible.

We were concerned that that loan would be lost in the sands of time without people aggressively policing how loans like that are repaid. People forget about them. Eighteen months later it would fall to the Chief Electoral Officer to follow it up, police it and make sure it was paid back. We are doubtful it happens in that way. This bill would preclude these big loans that are not really loans from undermining democracy and allowing big money to dominate politics once again.

There were other examples, too. Perhaps a more egregious example happened recently with the member of Parliament for Mississauga—Streetsville, who was a Liberal, crossed over to the Conservatives and now has to step out of that caucus as well because it was found that he was circumventing the election financing rules. Even though unions and businesses are not allowed to donate a single penny to finance an election, businesses can lend any number of dollars. In fact in this case, his own car dealership lent $240,000 to his riding association. Surely that violates at least the spirit of the act, if not the letter of the act.

I understand the election financing problems he has now deal more with overspending. I guess he was sitting on such a pot of money he overspent in his election campaign, but I call attention to the flip side of that coin and that is the source of that very money that he overspent, which was a loan from his own car dealership. That is fundamentally wrong.

It gives an unfair competitive advantage to somebody who can find a big corporation, or a big union for that matter, willing to finance him or her to this great extent, when the rest of us are out there scrambling around trying to raise money within the donation limit of $1,100 per year. Surely anybody can see the unfairness and the inequity of a system that would allow big money to dominate politics in that way.

As I said in my opening remarks, nobody should be able to buy an election in this country. It undermines democracy and more important, it undermines the public's confidence in their democratic institutions.

We are in the throes of a graphic illustration of how big money can undermine democracy. To those of us who sit on the ethics committee, and my Conservative Party colleague who is the vice-chair of the ethics committee perhaps feels the same way, if big money is influencing public policy decision making in the form of undue loans or loans that violate the spirit and the letter of the election financing laws, or bags of cash are given to leadership hopefuls or former prime ministers in hotel rooms, the public confidence in their institutions is severely shaken and undermined.

We work too hard to set up the best country in the world to see its democratic institutions undermined by what can be only described as greed by those who are willing to take advantage of loopholes in the election financing laws or in the lobbying registration laws, or the lack of them.

When the NDP was faced with the previous incarnation of this bill, and I believe it was Bill C-54, we spoke in favour of the bill. We note now that the government has introduced three amendments at report stage, two of which we have no difficulty with. We believe they are technical in nature and not of any substance.

The third one we do have a problem with and we will have to serve notice that we will vote against the third recommended amendment at report stage. It is a default mechanism that if the candidate in an election campaign defaults on a loan, it automatically goes to the federal party. We are not in favour of that amendment. We believe it complicates matters. Unless the political party has the right to veto such a loan, it should not be the automatic seconder or co-signer of that loan. It seems to me that it places an undue financial burden on the federal parties.

There are enough illustrations and graphic examples in the country that the general public could relate to this bill. In the spirit of fairness, in the spirit of levelling the playing field, in the spirit of creating an election financing regime where we all have an equal opportunity and we do not have a system that is dominated by big money in politics, that should be our goal. It should be our guiding principle that one of the best things about our election system, I believe, is how egalitarian it actually is.

There was a time when politics was the purview of the well connected, the rich and the powerful. We have a political system where a carpenter like me can aspire to raise the small amount of money necessary to become a member of Parliament. We have schoolteachers, auto mechanics and electricians; I have met many of my colleagues from all walks of life.

That is the system we want to preserve. We do not want to give an unfair competitive advantage to those who happen to know people who could lend them massive amounts of money far and away larger than the annual limit that we have set through the election financing laws.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has a great deal of expertise in these issues, much more than I do because he sits on the committee. However, I have followed the bill and have a deep interest in it.

If I understand it correctly, under the bill, one would have to get a loan from a bank, which I agree with completely. I seem to recall reading a while ago that there was a problem in the sense that some banks were a little shy, maybe, to lend money to political candidates because they did not want to be seen taking sides.

Has a change been made or is an amendment contemplated to the bill that, for example, could force banks to make the loan if the candidate is loan worthy, if the candidate's collateral meets certain criteria?

Otherwise, what I can see happening is the law of unintended consequences where a candidate asks the bank for a loan. The bank says that it does not want to get involved in politics and will not lend them money, but the candidate's competitor, who happens to be a business person, who does a lot of business with the bank and knows the bank manager personally, will get the loan because the bank wants to maintain the long term business relationship.

In all sincerity, would the member comment on that possible scenario and is there any move afoot to ensure that does not happen?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an interesting point, one that the people at the committee have dealt with somewhat. I do not know if an amendment is under way to address that specifically, but I do acknowledge the possibility of a lending institution being reluctant to delve into something where it may be accused of playing favourites or giving advantage to one party over another.

The goal of the bill is to take it out of private hands so individuals or businesses cannot loan in a way that exceeds the donation limits that currently exist in the Financing Act, and also to get away from the idea that somebody's personal connections may be an advantage to he or she.

I accept the valid point that a member of the community, who has a better relationship with the bank, may have an advantage over a perfect stranger who has never had to seek out this kind of loan.

With the bill, we are only saying that it should be financial institutions, credit unions, trust companies, banks, whatever may be able to keep an accurate record of the repayment schedule and to take away the advantage that one may have of getting loans through personal connections, et cetera.

To answer my colleague's questions, I acknowledge it as a legitimate concern. I know of no amendment to that effect being contemplated. I think it is something that would have to be monitored in practice.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague from the NDP not admit that for many years now so-called big money was not allowed legally to fund anybody's political party?

For many years, there have been very strong restrictions and constraints upon funding individuals who are running for federal office, which thankfully sets us apart from the United States, where big money does drive the electoral system to a large extent.

Will he not admit to the House that since he has been here and for many years before that, severe, consistent restrictions on funding have been in place and that this is not the issue whatsoever in our electoral system? It is clean and money does not play a big part illegally to try to affect anybody's—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There are 30 seconds left for the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal government did in fact put limits on donations, it left one huge, gaping loophole, which was the loans issue. Businesses and unions could no longer donate to any extent, but they could lend a candidate hundreds of thousands of dollars. They could lend them a million dollars. If the candidate never paid it back 18 months later, it would be deemed a donation. What good is that?

This loophole was screaming out to be plugged, and the bill plugs it.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Before moving on to further debate, 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 Verchères—Les Patriotes, Agriculture and Agri-food; the hon. member for Davenport, Justice; the hon. member for Egmont, Human Resources and Social Development.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-29 deals with the Canada Elections Act and accountability.

I will do a bit of history and talk about public accountability. Unfortunately what has happened for decades is the confusion with respect to what public accountability is or is not and the confusion between public accountability, conduct and responsibility. To the casual observer it seems they would be very much the same thing, but they are not and the implications of that are quite significant.

I owe much of this to Mr. Henry McCandless, from Victoria, who is a retired senior member of the Auditor General's office. He has waged a battle for many years to introduce true public accountability into the public service and into Parliament for the reason of affecting conduct. If we get public accountability right, in effect what we will be able to do is affect conduct and have a transparent means upon which the public can know what we, as elected officials, do and therefore be judged by that. In fact, if we get public accountability correct it is a liberating exercise for those of us who serve and for the public itself.

Let me for a moment give a true definition of public accountability. Public accountability is the obligation of authorities to explain publicly, fully and fairly, before and after the fact, how they carry out their responsibilities that affect the public in important ways. It is an obligation to report publicly to explain the intentions and reasons, including performance standards, what those performance standards are and, after the fact, whether they have been met.

In other words, the outcome of performance and the learning game can also be applied and in doing so, it is the liberating experience. Said another way, we as elected officials and senior members of the public service have an obligation to Canadians to tell them what we will do, why we will do it and what the public performance standards are upon which we will be judged. Then the outcomes can be judged and measured. We not only can go hand on heart and tell the public, in a transparent way, what we will do, but we know what we will be judged on. We know what the goals are, the public knows what the goals are. In doing this, we can measure very clearly how effectively we have executed our duties in the interests of the public good.

That should have been in the public accountability bill, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with public accountability and had everything to do with conduct. It has put on layers upon layers of administrative oversight, which are utterly unnecessary, upon the shoulders of the public service. This has created an expensive mechanism that will add absolutely nothing to public accountability and, in fact, will diminish the effectiveness of the public service to carry out its duties.

I cannot overemphasize the fact that the public accountability bill has been one of the most damaging public initiatives by the current government, or any government, in allowing the public service to execute its duty and for the public to be served well by an effective public service and an effective Parliament. Because this happened on the back of Gomery inquiry, it was a political initiative on the part of the government to try to make it look like it was cleaner than the previous government. It was all a bunch of nonsense. It was purely a political exercise.

The tragedy of the political exercise, the public accountability bill, is it has diminished the effectiveness of the public service and Parliament. Maybe the government wanted to do that. The Prime Minister is a follower of the U.S. political philosopher, Leo Strauss, who believed that a small number of people were predestined and preordained to lead. The Prime Minister is exhibiting that in Parliament and in the execution of his duties and that of the government.

Through what he has done, we do not now have a Parliament by the people, for the people or for the public through their elected officials. We have a government that is run by the Prime Minister's office, by a small group of unelected, invisible people who govern. These people do not listen to the public service. They exclude civil society and NGOs. They certainly diminish the effectiveness of the House by not listening to their members, their backbenchers and their ministers, their executive for the most part. They certainly do not give a care what anybody else thinks in the House. They also do not care what the public thinks.

If they are so sure in their ideology, that they believed they were preordained to govern and that their ideas are the only ideas that count and they have a tin ear to anybody else's ideas, then they will only move forward what they want and they will not listen to anybody else. However, by that, the public and our country is not served well. If they do not listen to Parliament, if they do not listen to other ideas from across the House, if they do not listen to their members, if they do not work with members from different sides, if they do not listen to NGOs and civil society and experts in our country, even the provinces, which are largely and often being excluded from decisions that affect them, what we have is a government that is less than what it could be, that is open to umpteen mistakes and that makes our country less than what it could be.

Is it not a government's responsibility to tap into the best and brightest ideas in our nation? Is it not a government's responsibility to tap into those great minds and those great ideas from coast to coast? Is it not a government's opportunity to tap into those solutions and implement them in the interest of the public good? I submit they are.

If the government were to truly introduce a public accountability act, it would put the responsibility on the shoulders of elected officials and unelected public servants, which includes people in the PMO and the PCO, to tell the public what they will do, who will benefit, why they will benefit and identify the public reporting standards upon which its activities are going to be judged. This would liberating for a government. The government could go to the public, tell it what it had done and how effective it had been. In those areas where a government had fallen short, there would be lessons to learned, and the public would fully understand that.

If a government were to do that, it would affect conduct. The conduct of an individual or a party would be measured by that which it told the public it would do. The government ought to be transparent, effective, wise and accountable.

There is a misnomer that public moneys or private moneys can somehow affect decision making. I wonder how many folks out there know that the limits for what people can donate legally to our elections, and to anybody who is running federally for a public office, is very modest. I believe it is between $1,000 and $5,000, $5,000 being the maximum. Banks, organizations and such, could only donate $5,000.

That is very different from the situation south of the border, where there are no spending limits. Thankfully our country has spending limits and they are governed by law. Therefore, if somebody is going to provide big money to somehow affect the public voting or influence an elected official: (a) the amount of those moneys would have to be large; (b) the person would have to be unscrupulous; and (c) if the person accepted it, he or she would be committing an illegal act. For many years it has been illegal for elected officials to accept large sums of money that would influence our decision making.

The government's notion of public accountability is dead wrong. It needs to review what it is and implement true public accountability. It would be something that no other government has done before and it would be a remarkable legacy if it were to do that.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here in the House to discuss Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans).

We of course as Liberals certainly support the spirit of this bill, but as with most of the government bills this session there are a number of problems. We can see this simply by the fact that there are a number of amendments that have been made to the bill.

The Liberal Party has always supported carefully identified limits and in fact, as many have said in the House already, the Liberal Party of Canada brought in the largest reduction of allowable political contributions in Canadian history and included a huge decrease in what corporations could donate.

As members from different parties have mentioned, I too believe that members of Congress are in an unfortunate situation. They can only sit for two years before the next election and in that time they have to raise millions and sometimes tens of millions of dollars. Some of the members had other problems with that. I do not enjoy fundraising as it is, but the problem I have is when are we going to do our work if we are trying to raise tens of millions of dollars within a two year period.

A lot of our efforts, as all members of Parliament know, are so overburdened with things to do to help our constituents to improve laws, to attend committees, to meet with organizations that want to influence us on a national level in Ottawa, and then we go back on the weekends and hear all the same things from organizations in our ridings.

If we are going to give a fair hearing to all of these people, look at legislation carefully, prepare for our committee work, prepare for our caucus meetings, and then in a two year period have to raise tens of millions of dollars on top of that, something will be lacking.

Therefore, I certainly think the system we have is very good in that respect which is one of the reasons we limited contributions so much in our system. We support that direction in electoral reform.

Along those lines we want to eliminate any undue abuse of loans that could pervert that system. The problem is that the Conservatives are suggesting that the current legislation allows loans to be written off without consequence. This is absolutely false. Loans cannot be used to avoid donation limits and they cannot be written off without consequence.

There is also another similar point about where the proponents of the bill are misleading Canadians about the current state of the law concerning political financing. The Conservatives are suggesting that the current law allows loans to be made in secret and that Canadians are kept in the dark.

The truth is that under the law that is currently in place the details of all loans including the amount of every loan, in the name of every lender and every guarantor, must already be publicly disclosed.

Therefore, we have to be careful that we are not just writing redundant legislation that is already covering elements that are already in place, elements of course of transparency and accountability that I am sure every member of the House would like to see.

Another element that has been raised during the debate is the philosophical question as to whether it would give financial institutions the final say in who runs as opposed to Canadians. This has been raised by several members in the House and some of my colleagues. I think each member of Parliament will have to think philosophically about that situation where loans only come from those particular institutions.

Of course we all want to ensure transparency and that there is no undue access by any particular groups of people or organizations, and we want to be absolutely sure about that. However, we also do not want to restrict the rights of Canadians to access the democratic process, to take part in it, to show that they are serious, and to contribute toward what they believe in. We certainly need to get a balance in those areas.

I want to talk about the two amendments. In a bill related to accountability and the democratic process, the committee democratically approved these amendments but now the government is trying to withdraw them.

The first amendment I want to speak about would have the Conservatives changing the contribution for a leadership campaign. It is presently $1,100, a very tiny amount. We can well imagine the costs for leaders as these campaigns sometimes take several years.

However, the costs for a candidate are very high. We want to be fair to Canadians from all parts of the country and we do not want to discriminate against rural Canadians. We want to allow candidates to get across the country, but the costs and expenses of their travel, their team and the preparation of policy and promotional material, and all that is involved in preparing for debates, all of that is very expensive. So a contribution of $1,100 is not going to go very far.

The present proposal and existing law allows $1,100 per year of a campaign. Usually that would be two years or three years until the contribution has been paid off and it is not an excessive amount of money.

The Conservatives are trying to withdraw what the committee has done and only allow a contribution of $1,100 for the entire lifetime of the campaign and of the process no matter how long it is. Of course, we disagree with that as do some others.

We also have a problem with the second amendment and speakers from other parties have spoken about problems with this amendment as well. The Conservatives are trying to suggest that if a candidate runs up some debt then his or her party or the local association, if there is one, would have to pay that debt.

Really, I cannot imagine many people seeing the sense in allowing other people to run up debt. If I were to run up a debt and then tell the Conservatives they would have to pay for it when they had nothing to do with incurring that debt, that is not the way the system should work.

There could be candidates who go out and incur debt that no one knows about and that puts the onus on people who did not even know the debt was incurred to repay that debt. Or, an organization that is thousands of miles away and would not have any idea that the debt was being incurred would ask the candidates to repay such a debt.

I am not sure that would withstand any type of court challenge related to fairness. We cannot go along making loans that people do not know about and then asking them to pay for it. That is why there has been so much objection to that amendment.

In my last 30 seconds I want to emphasize a point regarding accountability. When the government is putting a whole bunch of conditions on people and government programs, then the clients who really need that money do not have a bureaucracy to make all these overzealous rules and meet these conditions are really being harmed by that mismanagement of government.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this particular issue. I have to indicate that there are concerns out there with regard to issues of transparency and accountability, and certainly our party is all for that.

We also have to be careful that we are not coming up with a cure which is worse than the supposed problem here, particularly for women candidates and the issue of accessing money. We want to ensure that all candidates have the ability to run, to be able to finance a political campaign, and to do it in a manner which of course demonstrates both transparency and accountability.

Currently, it says all donations over $100 must be on the website. Now we will have to declare any contribution over $20 under the new legislation. People will know who has given. I think my colleague from Yukon was very clear with regard to what was happening in the United States with members of Congress. In a two year period they must raise millions of dollars in order to finance a campaign. There are no limits. They go out and raise money. Half of their two year term is simply going on the banquet circuit and dealing with lobbyists.

We do not have those problems. In fact, in this country we have very strict limits in terms of the amount of money that can be spent in any particular riding. I think that is what makes Canada unique.

When we talk with American congressmen and tell them that our limit is $75,000, they say to us, “That's not too bad for one day”. We tell them that is over a 35-day or 40-day period for a campaign and they are absolutely shocked. They ask us what we do with $75,000.

The problem with this bill is that it is a bit of overkill. What we are trying to say is that we want to make sure that moneys are available if candidates need it. In particular, we have seen cases where this particular amendment in this bill would cause a problem for women candidates borrowing money.

I think the issue is that everyone in the House believes in the accountability aspect. The question is that we also want to make it available for people who wish to run. Not everyone is wealthy and that again is another very good thing. Sometimes people do not have all the money in the bank when they decide to run. I think any kind of a restriction which would reduce that could be a problem.

At the moment, we know that Elections Canada is very clear about the reporting of loans for campaigns. We know that a riding association may loan money to the candidate in that riding. Again, this is all declared. It is all very clear. I think that is important.

The Liberal Party of Canada, during the leadership race, went beyond what was required in terms of the candidates being able to declare information.

If the goal of the bill is to achieve more accountability, then it fails in that regard. It builds new roadblocks in terms of people wanting to access the political arena, those people who want to run in an election. We want to encourage people, regardless of their financial background, to be able to run for election in this country. I think it is important that we do not have a House of Commons that only attracts those with money.

On both sides of the House we know, from time to time, how difficult it is when we are running a campaign and initial up front costs. They may be up front for signs, brochures, a campaign office, et cetera.

Obviously, some candidates do not have all that money at the beginning and they have to borrow. Then they have to wait for money to come in during the campaign. Again, I think that we have to try to have a balance in terms of what we are looking for in terms of this situation. Loans are an important part of this as is the declaration of those loans under Elections Canada and this legislation.

It is also important to keep in mind that there is a challenge now to try and secure money. Securing a loan from banks and financial institutions is important. Under these rules it would make it almost virtually impossible for candidates to go to a financial institution to secure the loan that they may need. If that were the case, then we are saying that they would be better off not running for office because they cannot get access to money.

We already have an open and transparent system in this country compared to that of the United States and others. Even under the old rules, before Bill C-24, we had to declare over $100 and it had to be accounted for. I think that shows how wonderful our system was. We had to declare it, there were limits on how much could be spent in a riding, the candidate's chief financial officer had to account for every penny, and statements were audited to make sure.

As members of Parliament, we know that if we do not declare donations, or if we are not able to account for every penny, we cannot take our seat in the House. That is important. We simply do not want that situation to occur. Obviously, financial institutions look at a person's ability to borrow money. This again would be a problem.

I think it is a bit misleading to suggest that the current state of the law regarding financial contributions to campaigns is a problem. In fact, I think it is probably tighter now than it has ever been. It is a bit misleading to suggest that loans are somehow made in secret. I do not see how they could be made in secret, because under the legislation, the Elections Act, if someone borrows money, that money has to be declared. The source has to be declared and the dates have to be declared.

I am sure there are members in the House who have borrowed money or had a line of credit from a bank. That has to be declared, as does the interest on it, et cetera, and that must all be paid. Again, I am not sure what the problem is. Every dollar and the lender have to be declared. We have to say whether the lender was an individual or an institution. That is already in the current legislation. All of it has to be declared. I am not sure what the problem is.

It is important that we have rules in place, but the suggestion in this legislation would restrict this even further. This would in turn disenfranchise people in regard to the ability to run. That is not what our system is about. Our system is about making sure that all candidates have equal access, and one of the sources of money they currently use is loans.

If a loan is not declared, there are consequences. There are stiff penalties. However, this legislation would make it even more restrictive, which I do not think Canadians want to see. They want to see transparency and accountability, but they do not want to see this becoming a rich person's game or, in other words, that in order to get into the House of Commons one has to be independently wealthy. I do not support that. I know our party does not support the change in this amendment.

I think it is important that we continue to say that we are different from other countries where raising money is certainly a preoccupation. As members of Parliament, my colleagues and I have more than enough to do in terms of dealing with the real issues of the day. If we have to go on the circuit of raising money and if we say that we are going to restrict loans to such a degree, I do not think it would be very productive. I am hopeful that members will keep this in mind when considering this amendment.

Again, I think we all want to see people from all backgrounds and all walks of life participating in the political process. We cannot tell them that if they do not have the dollars on hand then they cannot participate. That would not be good. It would be a roadblock to their participation. It would be a stumbling block. In fact, I think it would be a regressive move in terms of legislation.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's very interesting speech. One of the things that I find very disturbing is the fact that any smaller party or anyone who does not have the cash cannot run for office, and this will make it a lot more difficult for individuals to run for office.

When people are starting off, as the hon. member mentioned, they borrow money. As the money starts coming in, they start paying off the loans. With a wealthy party or a wealthy area, the candidate will get all kinds of cash. However, what happens is that certain areas will end up not being represented and parties will start to get eliminated.

Could the hon. member comment on how this is going to limit accessibility for lower income Canadians and lower income areas of the country when it comes to the electoral system?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt this will have a severe impact, first in terms of people who would like to run. Not everyone has the ability to simply put the money up front. Depending on people's backgrounds or professions, they would be very much hindered in wanting to run. For many right now, it is a daunting task in terms of running for political office, and then they have to worry about being a full time fundraiser. They worry about where they get the money and about not being able to get a line of credit or borrow money. In some parts of the country, it is more difficult to raise money due to certain socio-economic conditions. Obviously, given that situation, it would be very restrictive.

In regard to education, we talk about how we want to provide a hand up to allow students from disadvantaged areas or who are economically disadvantaged to go to university. Money should not be an impediment to getting a post-secondary education, and I would suggest that money should not be an impediment in terms of being able to run for public office.

If in fact someone wants to run for public office, I note that already the Liberal Party put restrictions on and reduced the influence of associations, unions and businesses. Again, everything was transparent. I think that what we are trying to do here is deal with an issue that really is not an issue.

What we are saying is that we want accessibility for people who run for any political party. My colleague is quite right. If someone from a smaller, less established party wants to run, again, this would be an impediment. The political process should not be just for the rich. It should be for everyone. We should all be able to participate in the political process. It is critical that we do so.

Again, I think that in this situation the government is trying to use overkill for a problem that really is not there. It is not something that I have seen. Certainly, after talking to many colleagues on all sides of the House, I note that they all use loans from financial institutions. They need them. Again, it is unfortunate that we are trying to deal with a problem that I do not think really exists.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question and a comment.

As for the question, it has been an interesting week. We have debated a number of bills and there seem to be hardly any Conservative members speaking on them. I would not have mentioned it except that on an accountability bill it seems the most ironic of all. Are they accountable to their constituents? I wonder if the member would know why that might be. I cannot imagine that they have no ideas. They seem very friendly and I am sure their constituents talk to them and provide input on bills. I am wondering what the member thinks as to why that might be.

My comment, before he answers the question, is related to the important point that the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca brought up, which is the fact that in regard to the last couple of years with all the accountability innovations, many of which the Liberals contributed, sometimes we have to be careful not to go overboard. There are struggling organizations out there helping people and we put in so many rules that they cannot do their jobs.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Richmond Hill has eight seconds to respond.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, why the Conservatives are not standing up, but I can say that on this side we are standing up for Canadians and for the political process in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-29.The Bloc Québécois supports this bill, which seeks to prevent individuals from bypassing campaign financing rules. We support the bill for the simple reason that we think it is necessary to regulate loans in order to prevent people from getting around the financing ceilings. The problem with certain bills is that the wording may be clear, but sometimes the spirit of the letter can be abused. Sometimes a bill can be convoluted and ambiguous. This can result in misinterpretation or misapplication of the legislation. This bill establishes more rules for political financing.

I want to remind hon. members that financing ceilings were established in response to one of the Bloc Québécois' traditional demands. We demanded an end to corporate financing and limits on individual contributions, as has been the case in Quebec for 30 years.

I remember it as though it were yesterday. I can still see Prime Minister Chrétien, who was paying tribute to René Lévesque for introducing clear financing rules, or should I say, pure financing rules, in Quebec. Mr. Chrétien did not use those words, but he said that the new rules, which prohibited corporate financing, were largely inspired by what was happening in Quebec. Imagine. It was not easy for former Prime Minister Chrétien to pay tribute to René Lévesque. Mr. Chrétien probably had to dig deep for that. He probably had a hard time getting it out, but fortunately, for the benefit of everyone, Mr. Chrétien implicitly recognized that the Bloc Québécois had a reason to be persistent and to call for better financing rules at the federal level.

This bill includes the only modification proposed by the Bloc Québécois when the old Bill C-54 was at committee stage. After the throne speech, some bills had to be re-introduced, including the one before us, Bill C-29. The Bloc Québécois was strongly against political parties being held responsible for debts incurred by their candidates, particularly when the political party is not named on the contract between the candidate and the bank.

The members of the Bloc Québécois choose its candidates democratically. We sell membership cards for $5, and by purchasing a card, any person who subscribes to our values, principles and policies is showing that they support the Bloc Québécois in its defence of the interests of Quebec here on the federal scene. The membership card also gives the individual the opportunity to choose who will represent the Bloc Québécois and the Bloc Québécois platform in a byelection or general election. This is one of the benefits of being a member. There are others, such as the right to attend the annual general meeting, the right to receive party literature, and many other rights associated with being a member of a political party.

The Bloc Québécois is different from some other parties where the leader, on his or her own authority, can literally name certain people as candidates for the party. In our case, the members choose the candidates democratically. This democratic approach also means that anyone who is a member and shares the party's views can stand for nomination. This can cost candidates money. However, the bylaws of the Bloc Quebecois place a limit on what a candidate for nomination can spend. I believe it is $1 per member in good standing, but I could be wrong. At this late hour, my party's bylaws are not uppermost in my mind. Regardless, there is a limit on what candidates can spend. A person therefore could not decide to spend $350,000 to become a candidate at a Bloc nomination meeting.

During the last session, we found there was a problem with this bill, which was then known as Bill C-54. Candidates could spend up to the maximum stipulated in our party's bylaws, but if they were unable to pay their debts, if they had taken out a loan from a financial institution, the party was held responsible. We considered that totally unacceptable, and we still do. The party should not be held responsible for the debts of a candidate for nomination.

That is why, on behalf of my party, I introduced an amendment to Bill C-54, and I succeeded in convincing my opposition colleagues to bring the government into line. Unfortunately, as hon. members can read in the Order Paper and Notice Paper, the government House leader has introduced three amendments to this bill. One of those amendments would nullify the effects of the amendment my NDP and Liberal colleagues on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs agreed to after I convinced them. The government is proposing a motion to reverse this democratic decision of the committee.

With respect, I want to tell the government House leader that he will likely be disappointed, because I believe that my Liberal and NDP colleagues support the Bloc Québécois' interpretation, and we intend to reject this government amendment, which is designed to reverse what we won in committee. We do not want the government to do indirectly what it was incapable of doing directly.

Because I do not have much time, that concludes my remarks. The Bloc Québécois supports the bill, because it clarifies some rules on political party financing.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to clarify. I did not understand what he said the Liberals and the NDP did not agree with. I think he was talking about the amendment related to parties and associations being responsible for the debt of a candidate over whom they may have no control and had no idea they were incurring debts.

It seems patently un-Canadian, unfair and perhaps unconstitutional. I spoke strongly against that. I think that is what the member spoke against as well, and I want to make sure we are on the same side on opposing that concept in the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we believe that the recognized party—that is, the political party under whose name we sit here in this House—should not be held responsible for debts incurred by a candidate for nomination. That is the principle we would like to defend. I hope my hon. colleagues in the House will vote with me. I received the support of their representatives on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

An individual candidate for a nomination must be responsible for the debts he or she incurs with a bank, credit union or other financial institution. That has nothing to do with the party. In any case, it is, first and foremost, a financial contract entered into between an individual and a financial institution. Thus, it has nothing to do with the party.

Should we also start taking on the unpaid car loans and unpaid mortgages, because the person is a candidate for a party's nomination? That would be ridiculous. Similarly, political parties are not responsible for the debts incurred by a candidate for nomination.

I would remind the House that a candidate for nomination is not considered an official candidate until the nomination meeting is held. He or she is a candidate for nomination to become the official standard bearer of the party during a byelection or general election.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I note, from the comments of my Bloc colleague, that there seems to be a consensus growing, among the opposition parties at least, that we do not accept this idea that the default position should be to the federal party if in fact candidates default or fail to pay back their loans in the accepted period of time.

We all come from the same premise that a loan that is not paid back is deemed a donation and this was a loophole that should have been plugged.

The point I want to make is that sometimes in a riding where candidates have very little opportunity, they may see in their mind that they have a possibility of winning and spend far too much money in that campaign. In a campaign that may have warranted a $10,000 token amount, some candidates may borrow the full $80,000 and run a full campaign even though they have no hope of winning and in fact fail.

I am wondering if a change could be made to the amendment proposed where if the federal parties were to have the right to veto situations like this, would it then be acceptable for the party to be the co-signer or the guarantor of the loan for candidates. Or, does the member's party feel that it is a complete non-starter as an issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre raises a very interesting question. A distinction must be made between, on the one hand, the legislative rules that would be brought in under Bill C-29 and, on the other hand, the constitutions of each of our parties. The NDP constitution is different from ours; the Liberal constitution is different from that of the Conservatives. It is therefore very difficult, but it is absolutely necessary—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Halton.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill in the few minutes left in debate here today.

Mostly, I would like to talk about the law of unintended consequences. I think it is a law that somewhat bedevils the government. For example, when it brought in legislation to fix what it perceived was a problem with income trusts, we ended up actually making the situation a lot worse with Canadians, investors and the economy. I am kind of concerned that the law of unintended consequences might click in with Bill C-29.

The bill seeks to add clarity and transparency to the way that we politicians finance our political activities, mainly election campaigns. It would disallow us the ability to go and borrow money from friends, relatives, places of employment or supporters. It would disallow us the ability, as I understand it, to finance our own campaigns with money borrowed in our own name. In other words, money now has to be borrowed only from a financial institution.

On the surface of it, that does not sound so bad because it makes somewhat of a level playing field among all of us, but when the law of unintended consequences clicks in, all of a sudden we see this. People who are without the means to convince a commercial lending institution to actually give them money for something as dubious and uncertain as running for public office end up out of luck, and, because this is now their sole ability to get borrowed funds to run, we might end up having a lot of people, who would be very worthwhile to have in this place, who would never get here.

I am worried about the consequences, for example, of people with bad credit and people who are not wealthy and who cannot put up a lot of resources to guarantee a loan. Perhaps there are people who are from various groups, female candidates or aboriginal candidates, people who richly deserve to be in this House, who will never make it because of this legislation.

I do not think that is what the government intended. I doubt it is even what the Minister for Democratic Reform intended when this legislation was brought forward. I think it was intended more to catch people, such as the member for Mississauga—Streetsville who crossed from the Liberals to the Conservatives not long ago and now sits as an Independent. I believe it was put into place to catch situations such as that, but the laws of unintended consequences here are very serious.

Effectively, because the only source of borrowed money for a political campaign would now be from a financial institution, which has the power to grant or not to grant that, financial institutions would be given the power of life and death over a political campaign. If they do not finance the campaign, the candidate does not get a campaign. I do not think that is the role of our banks in this country to do that.

I am very concerned that the bill would do nothing to encourage accountability. The system has a lot of accountability now. If people borrow money for a political campaign, they must divulge that. Our guarantor must be public. The terms of the loan must be public. Right now there is every reason to believe that we have adequate accountability in the system.

The Conservatives suggest that the law, as it now stands, somehow leads to secret financing of political campaigns. That is absolutely false. If this legislation does go forward, this place might remain the purview of guys like me: old, white, wealthy, middle class individuals, and, God knows, looking around this chamber right now, I think we have enough of them.

This legislation is actually anti-democratic and I am not about to surrender the ability of good people to run this place to the presidents of banks, and particularly the loan officers of those institutions.

Therefore, I must say that I do not agree with this legislation at all. I think it is draconian and I would call upon the Minister for Democratic Reform to withdraw it.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 5:30, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

When we next return to the study of Bill C-29, there will be five minutes left for the hon. member for Halton.

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 Act

[The Acting Speaker, 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.

[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.

[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.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary 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.

[The Acting Speaker, 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?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

(Amendments No. 1 to 6 agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Saint-Jean has less than a minute left.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

As I said in winding up my speech, this is just another way of getting around the rules. Insofar as transparency and democracy are concerned, the Conservative Party could go over it again because the motions it brought before the House were rejected in committee.

The Bloc Québécois said it was not right that if someone took out a bank loan and failed to pay it back or had problems, his political party would be held responsible by default for paying to clean up the mess.

That is not how things work when a loan is taken out. Someone has to be the guarantor. A political group or pressure group cannot be told that its candidate borrowed money but failed to pay it back and now it is up to the group to do so in his stead.

That does not make sense. We therefore want this motion withdrawn.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I had the time for a question I certainly would want to enquire about some of the current cases before Parliament.

Bill C-29 aims to establish a system of improved accountability for candidates to report loans taken out during election campaigns. Its key elements include creating a uniform and transparent reporting regime for all loans to political parties, including mandatory disclosure of terms and the identity of all lenders and loan guarantors; ensuring that total loans, loan guarantees and contributions by individuals should not exceed the annual contribution limit for individuals established in the Canada Elections Act; and allowing only financial institutions and other political entities the capacity to make loans beyond the annual contribution limit for individuals and only at commercial rates of interest.

Tightening rules for the treatment of unpaid loans is also important to ensure candidates cannot walk away from unpaid loans by ultimately holding riding associations responsible for unpaid loans taken out by their candidates.

The bill was first presented to the House during the first session of Parliament as Bill C-54 and reintroduced in November of last year with essentially the same content as Bill C-54. The bill was very seriously examined during meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Members worked hard and agreed upon different elements, not the least of which was a significant improvement which now calls for unpaid amounts of the loan to be considered contributions after three years after the day on which it was made. The original government proposal was to make that period only 18 months. Now the government House leader is presenting motions that would completely disregard the other amendments that were passed at committee.

Government Motion No. 1 would delete the Liberal amendment to allow for annual contributions to a leadership candidate. Under this motion, for example, a person would be allowed to donate $1,000 to a leadership candidate in each calendar year until the leadership candidate paid his or her campaign debt and formally closed his or her leadership campaign.

Government Motion No. 2 would make it necessary for loans to be repaid annually rather than at the point when the loan becomes due. Effectively, this would prevent candidates from taking extended repayment loans. It makes no sense to set up an artificial limit on repayment.

Considering the fact that elections can be called at different times during the year, whether it be January, April or October, it is unreasonable for someone to be asked to pay off a loan before the time limit established by the loan contract. We see that the government is pushing hard on its perception of accountability.

Furthermore, as members of Parliament will know, once we are elected our focus shifts to doing our job, not to running in elections or raising money for elections. It, therefore, would be an absolute hindrance for anyone to have to focus on repaying by the end of a fiscal year if that is not the date that was agreed upon with the lender.

Government Motion No. 3 would delete the Bloc amendment that would have removed liability from registered political parties for loans taken by candidates. This motion would set up a system or a responsibility for registered political parties and riding associations, regardless of whether or not they are aware that the candidate has taken out a loan. Making one entity responsible for the personal debt of an individual does not sound responsible under any criteria.

The government waited for the original version of this bill to die with prorogation so that it could present new motions to completely obliterate the changes that had already been agreed upon democratically at committee.

There are some five bills in Bill C-2, many of which had progressed substantially through the legislative process. In fact, many of those bills would have been law today had the government taken the opportunity it had to reintroduce those bills at the same stage they were at when prorogation occurred.

As a consequence, we now find Bill C-2 as an issue of debate in this place simply because the government suggests that it should happen quicker. However, it engineered the delay in those pieces of legislation. Therefore, it is very similar to what has happened with regard to this bill.

Through this tactic, Canadians have seen that the government is clearly not interested in really working with the other parties to come up with sound legislation. It is only interested in continuing to pursue a philosophy of “my way or the highway” kind of legislative process. It is only interested in presenting political jabs disguised as draft legislation, and we have seen that time and time again on many bills.

While the government continues to repeat that Bill C-29 will finally stop the undue influence of wealthy contributors who were supposedly skirting Elections Act donation limits through the use of personal loans, the bill is clearly designed to disadvantage the Liberal Party of Canada financially and to limit access to the political process for many Canadians.

The fact is our party has demonstrated, in good faith, that we want to work to improve election laws. After all, our party was the one that passed the bill to limit the role of corporations and unions in election financing in Bill C-24 in 2003.

Our party also initiated the most significant contribution limit reduction in Canadian history. Furthermore, during our last leadership campaign, all candidates publicly disclosed all loans made to their campaigns and went above and beyond the requirement set out in the Canada Elections Act in this regard.

The Prime Minister still refuses to fully disclose the complete scope of financing of his own 2002 leadership campaign. Clearly the government is running a “Do as I say, not as I do” kind of operation. How can Canadians believe a government that does not want to practise what it preaches.The Liberal Party supports measures to make Canadians more confident in their politicians by seeking to improve the accountability of the electoral process.

We support the bill, as amended by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which includes the measures that were approved democratically by all of the parties.

Let me refer also to the activity within the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to which many important issues are referred and is represented by all parties. What happens is it is sometimes very dysfunctional in terms of deciding to do things or not to do things. In the case of the so-called in and out scandal, a filibuster has been going on since late October or early November on the ruling by the Chief Electoral Officer that the Conservative Party had breached the Canada Elections Act by transferring loans into and then out of candidates accounts. This kind of issue is very serious and the Chief Electoral Officer found that it was improper. The issue still is not out of procedure and House affairs committee. It is still not progressing because the government is filibustering.

For those who may be watching, a filibuster occurs when a party decides that it will continue to talk. There are no limits on talking when a motion is made. If the chair of that committee permits it to get too broad, effectively what we can do is continue to talk. When one member is finished, another member can get up and continue to talk. Therefore, we have a filibuster whereby the question before the committee never gets voted on and no action is ever taken.

We have seen that time and time again as a tactic. As members know, the government members were given a binder for their committees on how to disrupt the business of committees. Amendments were made to the bill at committee. Now they are being changed. There are all kinds of tactics, which I think Canadians would find very distasteful, with regard to respect for the rule of parliamentary procedures and law and how matters are handled.

I believe parliamentarians on committee, in reviewing the matter before us, did their job. They agreed upon the amendments. These have been tampered with yet again by the government to show bad faith in terms of respecting the fact that this is a minority government. It is important that we move now to make good laws and wise decisions. It does not include the changes proposed by the government.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with rapt attention to my hon. colleague. I am absolutely flabbergasted that the member of the House of Commons would dare talk about filibustering in a negative fashion.

I do not believe there is anybody in the House of Commons who speaks more often on more legislation, more motions, more points of order and more than the member. I think he has written the book on filibustering and wasting the time of the House on any number of issues. Anybody who happens to watch the parliamentary channel on television would be well acquainted with the member. It is a bit rich when he talks about filibustering and suggests that our members should not utilize that completely legitimate parliamentary tactic when necessary to make a point.

As to the issue before the procedure and House affairs committee, to which he referred, whereby the Liberal Party of Canada wants to ensure that the procedure and House affairs committee only looks at the Conservative Party of Canada's election expenses and not its own, why does the Liberal Party not want to open up its books?

We are more than willing to open up our books and have a complete review of everything we did during the last election campaign. All we are asking, and we have been asking it for months, is that the other three political parties do the same. Let us just treat all political parties equally.

I think all Canadians would be in favour of that and would be supportive of it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr.Speaker, I am pleased to address the hon. member's two areas of questions.

First, the member is quite right with regard to the first item. I do speak a fair bit in the House. In the last Parliament I spoke more than any other member in this place. I probably have had the same level of activity in the current Parliament.

However, it is not something that gets announced as what we do, but as a parliamentarian and a member of the Liberal team, we all have roles to play. We all have responsibilities.

The member will know that in the last Parliament and in this Parliament I have been designated as the permanent House duty officer, which means I am responsible for being in the place to participate in debate as necessary, to raise points of order, to ensure there are members in their places and to generally coordinate the activities. It does mean I speak a lot. It is not because I like to speak. I am doing my job.

I very much appreciate the kind words that members often give me when I have spoken. They know I do my homework and they know I do not waste the time of the House.

The second matter the member raised was with regard to looking at all parties with regard to the in and out scandal. The answer is very clear. The only reason the item is before the procedure and House affairs committee now is because the Conservative Party is the only party that has been charged with breaches under the Canada Elections Act by the Chief Electoral Officer.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the reason the member and his party are afraid to have their books investigated before the committee is because very imminently it will become public that their party is seeking ways to attract corporate money and big donations that exceed the limits and break the rules. How does he explain the Liberal Party's hiding its electoral finances?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the member could know something about what somebody may do. It is not a fact. The fact is the Conservative Party has been found in breach of the Canada Elections Act by the Chief Electoral Officer.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take the floor too often, for too long, in a pleasant fashion or otherwise, but I believe that, in this House, we must absolutely—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, but the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton wants to rise on a point of order, to which I will listen carefully.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, matters of law are of great importance and require precision in the House under the Standing Orders. This is why it was with deep regret when we heard the member across say that the Conservative Party had been charged by Elections Canada. There has been no such charge made. In fact, the Conservative Party is the plaintiff, taking Elections Canada to court, and that is a key point.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

That's debate, not a point of order.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Tell the truth about it. Tell the truth, that's the point.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Will the chief government whip please note the Speaker is rising.

As far as the point of order raised by the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton, whether it is a valid point or not, it is a point of debate and not a point of order.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us go at it again.

What is interesting in this House is that some debates often look like they are going to be calm affairs but then, all of a sudden, people's tempers are flaring. When we talk about the crux of the matter in an election, namely money, people often tend to get carried away.

I just understood what the Liberal Party member said, through the questions of the hon. whip from the other side, and I realize that the Conservative Party is extremely fragile and sensitive. It is even a little too sensitive when we talk about monetary issues during election campaigns.

After a 30-year legal career, I can say that the single most important quality that we want from a judge when we address the bench is neutrality, the appearance of neutrality. The judge must be above the fray.

The problem for MPs, for elected members in Canada and in Quebec, but particularly outside Quebec, is that we are now realizing that a number of members do not comply with the Elections Act. In Quebec, thanks to René Lévesque, the Quebec Elections Act, which was passed in 1977, improved the election process.

We would like it to be the same on the federal scene. Unfortunately, it is not always the case and some political parties—the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, not to mention this country's two oldest political parties—would really like nothing to change in that regard.

It has to stop, however, because the credibility of the elected representatives from those parties is at stake. I will likely be taking part in my third electoral campaign within a few weeks. I can assure the House that election expenses probably account for the largest part of our spending in an election. They must therefore be clear and transparent, and that should apply to every elected member of this House. Election expenses should be clear and transparent, and we should never hesitate to answer questions about our election expenses. That is unfortunately not the case.

We in the Bloc Québécois are in favour of a return to rules that are smarter and more respectful of those who elected us.

My comments will focus on Motion No. 3, which would make the parties responsible for any debt incurred by their candidates, whether they know about it or not. In any legal system, to be a party to an action, one has to have been invited to take part, have been convicted and, more importantly, have been called upon by the court to defend himself or herself.

Through a motion, we would like to restore an amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois that we feel is absolutely essential: a political party cannot be held responsible for expenses incurred by a candidate, especially when it is not aware of such expenses. It seems pretty clear to me, and the same idea could be expressed both in French and in English: one cannot be responsible for a debt they know nothing about.

The government would like to come and impose upon the political parties the responsibility for debts that their candidates refuse or are unable to pay back.

I do not know about the other parties, but the Bloc Québécois always makes sure that it has reliable, sincere candidates who are capable of fulfilling their obligations. Election expenses have to be monitored carefully, not only by the candidate but also by the candidate’s financial agent, who should be there at all times to oversee and supervise election spending.

How can we assign liability to a political party when one of its candidates starts spending money that the political party does not even know about? That seems to us to be completely absurd and completely contrary to all of the laws in Canada, and in particular in Quebec, where the law says that no one can be a party to an action if he or she is not responsible for the damage caused or did not sign the contract.

If a political party is not aware of the money spent by its candidate, how can it be held liable for it? It seems to us to be absolute nonsense to require candidates not to pay. If you agree to a debt, you have to pay it, but we think it is nonsense for a party to be liable for a debt that it did not agree to.

The government would like to do something totally unacceptable: require a political party to be responsible for all debts that a candidate might incur during an election. That seems to us to be completely absurd and that is why the Bloc Québécois introduced an amendment that was agreed to by the committee. Suddenly, the government is making another attempt and once again wants the party to be responsible for a debt incurred by a candidate.

For example, if a candidate goes on a wild spending spree amounting to $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000, would the political party that he or she is representing be liable for it? That seems to us to be completely illogical and irrational, and most importantly contrary to the law in force in Quebec and Canada, under which, in order for someone to be a party to a contract, that person must have signed it, must be a party to it and must have set his or her hand to it or given approval for such a contract.

Obviously we are going to invite the House to rethink Motion No. 3 seriously so it can be defeated and we can come back to the amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois in committee. We are therefore calling for Motion No. 3 to be rejected.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for addressing this problem so clearly.

I would like to know what he thinks. He talked about a person who could take out a loan on behalf of a candidate or a candidate who could do so himself. Would it be possible for a candidate who planned on using such a law to make his political party pay back the loan to get loans himself from several people, and assume that, either way, he will never have to pay them back since the party will?

In the House, we know the parties that have a lot of money and that could say this is no problem, they would pay later and settle it all in three years. I would like to know whether my colleague thinks this could also be a possibility.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's competence is clearly reflected through his excellent question. I also happen to believe that he is absolutely right.

Some candidates could run in an election and spend money while thinking there will not be any problems. They were asked to run for a party, and since they are doing so, that party will foot the bill. It is as if someone went to a restaurant and told everyone that it is an open bar and that, in any case, he is not the one paying. It is the party that is paying.

This is totally unacceptable, and I think the hon. member is absolutely right. I believe, and I maintain that a candidate who runs in an election must be personally responsible for his expenditures. It is not up to the party to foot the bill at the end of the day, but to the candidate who ran. This would ensure that the candidate acts much more responsibly and is much more cautious with money, because he would be responsible for making sure that he is spending money properly and adequately. He would then be able to account for his expenditures before the House, which may not be the case for some candidates who ran under the Conservative banner in the last election.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just finished answering the question of the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi about these election expenses that pose a problem to Elections Canada. The Conservative Party is suing Elections Canada. I think the purpose of this suit is to keep the lid on something that is looking increasingly like a scandal, for as long as possible.

I would like my colleague to comment on a statement made by the second in command at Elections Canada, Janice Vézina, in this dispute between Elections Canada to the Conservative Party. In a written statement, Ms. Vézina argued that the Conservative Party failed to comply with the Elections Act by making its local candidates share in the cost of its national advertising, which, of course, allowed the party to spend more than permitted by law. As a result, the Conservative Party exceeded its spending limit by more than $1 billion.

Does this whole saga not show how the old political parties act instinctively? This is taking us back to the days when some parties had dead people voting for them. Once again, all sorts of tricks are being used to achieve their own ends and exceed the limit on election expenses.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is an insightful one.

It is obvious that there is a problem. That is why I am saying that individual candidates should be responsible for the expenses they incur during an election campaign. There is one word all of us in this House must remember and that is transparency.

We should never be afraid of expenses incurred in an election campaign. More importantly, we should never be afraid to answer questions designed to determine whether or not our election expenses were permissible and, more importantly, legally permitted, which does not seem to be the case here.

The poor woman must be on the verge of losing her job. We know of others who have been removed by the Conservative government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on the topic of Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

I know that many members of this House have worked hard on improving this bill at the committee stage and I certainly know that we all appreciate their hard work.

Let me begin by pointing out that many parts of this bill are based on recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer in his report to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

In the report, the Chief Electoral Officer found that when loans are given to a political candidate by a person who is not regularly in the business of lending money, it could be perceived by some as a means to influence the political process with money.

As we in this House know, even the perception of influence peddling can be just as damaging to Canadians' views of the political process as unabashed influence peddling.

Some of the recommendations made in his report include ensuring that all loans from lending institutions be granted to a candidate at the going commercial rate. Another of his recommendations was to establish a limit on loans made by individuals that would be equal to their annual political contribution amount. For 2007 that amount was $1,100. Both of these recommendations found their way into the bill.

Now, corporations and unions would be prevented from making loans to political candidates and parties, just as they have been prevented from making campaign contributions. Individuals would be limited in the sum total of their contributions and loans for a given year. Both a loan and a contribution would now count toward their maximum annual limit.

Another important recommendation made by the Chief Electoral Officer was that the information surrounding any loans be made public in order to mitigate the chances of a perceived conflict of interest. According to the report, the information to be disclosed should include the identity of the lender, interest rates, and a repayment schedule for the loan.

I was pleased to see that during the Liberal Party's last leadership race, our candidates went above and beyond the call of duty to disclose this type of information. I believe it is an excellent idea that the other parties in this House be brought under the same type of scrutiny. There are still some people in this House, not least and most specifically the Prime Minister, who have not revealed the names of the people and organizations which contributed to his leadership campaign in 2002. This kind of secrecy is what leads many Canadians to become distrustful of the political process.

I encourage my colleagues on the Conservative side of the House to urge their leader to disclose those contributions as soon as possible. It could be a good subject to raise in this week's caucus two days from now.

I would now like to provide some background that will illustrate how we have arrived at the current set of laws governing political financing in this country.

The Liberal Party in fact has been at the forefront of the movement toward a more open and transparent process for political donations.

In 2003 the previous Liberal government introduced the first annual limits on individual contributions to a political party and/or candidate. In that same bill, it also limited contributions from corporations and unions to political parties. These changes stand today as the most significant ones that have been made to political financing laws in decades.

I was happy to support these changes in 2003 and I am happy to support Bill C-29 today, providing that the amendments made at committee are kept in place.

There is a danger that sometimes in our zeal to make things better we actually make things worse through a variety of unintended consequences. That is why I am glad to see that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs made some very well-intentioned and sensible amendments to Bill C-29 during its review of the bill this past December. The government itself brought forward some of these amendments.

Principally, they altered the bill to ensure that if a person makes a $1,100 loan to a candidate in a given year, say 2008, and that candidate repays the loan in that same year, then the donor would be able to make another $1,100 loan without going over his or her annual contribution limit. I think this was supported by all parties at committee stage.

There were some amendments which the government did not agree with, which I understand we will be voting on again here at report stage.

One such amendment has to do with who is liable for loans that go unpaid. The NDP, Bloc and Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs were concerned that the wording of the original bill could have made political parties responsible for loans that their candidates took without even knowing that their candidates had secured them.

If, for instance, a candidate were to take out a $20,000 loan without informing the central party that he or she had done so, the candidate could conceivably then declare bankruptcy after the election, forcing the registered political party to assume liability for the loan, despite the fact that the party had not authorized, approved, or even been aware of the loan in the first place.

For the parties that have representation in the House, this would certainly be an irritant, but it would by no means be catastrophic for them. The parties that this would really hurt are the ones not represented in the House, such as the Green Party and others like it, that field candidates in all regions of the country. For those parties, the possibility of assuming responsibility for a series of loans that their central parties were not even aware of would be extremely damaging to their future viability, and this of course would not be good for democracy.

A third amendment, which the government has tabled a motion to remove from the bill, has to do with loans to candidates when the campaign stretches across the January 1 new year.

Originally the bill only allowed for a single loan to a candidate during the course of the campaign valued at the maximum annual contribution limit. At committee stage it was agreed that should a campaign cross the new year divide, another loan could be made up to the annual contribution limit by an individual in the second year. I do not think I need to illustrate that. It is a clear point and I cannot see the problem the government has with that. We very recently had an election that spanned across the new year, and I think this is a sensible amendment. It is also important for all of our parties' future leadership races which might often run from one year into the next.

Without this amendment, a person who lends $1,100 to a candidate in December would be able to make a similar size donation to that candidate come January, but he would not be able to enter into a second loan agreement.

While this may seem like a trivial amendment to my colleagues over on that side of the House, I would suggest it is a common sense amendment, and I hope they will consider keeping it in the bill.

I could not speak to Bill C-29 without mentioning some of the concerns that have been raised in some quarters about the limits imposed by this bill.

First, there has been some concern raised by several financial institutions that this bill would, to a significant degree, give them some control over who has the ability to run for federal office or for leadership of a political party in this country. If a candidate is not able to meet the requirements of his or her bank to secure a loan, then that candidate will be severely handicapped in the early stages of his or her campaign.

I have the sense that banks are not worried so much about actually denying someone a loan in order to run for office. After all, they are professionals and will base their decisions on to whom to lend money on sound financial principles. The problem for them would be an apparent conflict of interest if one or several candidates from a particular party are denied loans while other parties do not seem to have any trouble.

I do not believe that these waters are unnavigable for the banks. I believe that in terms of provincial political loans some provinces already have in place measures similar to this one and the banks appear to have done fine in that respect. It is, however, something that we in the House must be mindful of and continue to monitor as we move forward.

There has also been some concern raised in some circles that this bill would severely disadvantage Canadians who are less well off and yet wish to run for political office. If a candidate has not built up sufficient equity or maintained a strong enough credit rating, he or she will be prevented from securing the loans that might help launch their political careers. I know that the National Women's Liberal Commission made a submission to the procedure and House affairs committee that outlined such a concern.

As I said earlier, I will be supporting Bill C-29 with its current amendments, but I would hope that if in the future it became evident that these types of problems were occurring, the House would be willing to reopen the issue and ensure that the problems were resolved.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member congratulated the procedure and House affairs committee for all its work, although I guess in some weird way I should thank the member for all the work because we have been trying to close the holes that the Liberals found to get contributions in very tricky ways. I remember when there were $5,000 dinners and we had to close that loophole. Then there were donations from kids for $5,000 and we had to close that loophole.

The latest one in this act is really a good one. Let us say that a party that we might call the L party had a candidate running for leadership, and let us just call that candidate D. He borrows $800,000 from the bank, which is guaranteed by, let us say, his brother. Then he defaults on that $800,000 loan, making his brother pay it. The banks are happy, but the brother happened to make an $800,000 contribution, which is completely against the intent of the law. There are a number of members on that side, most of them sitting on the frontbench, who did exactly that.

I would like to ask the member if he intends to endorse that kind of a policy, or is the member actually going to encourage members of his party to follow the law's intent and stop making the procedure and House affairs committee work so hard?

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this mysterious person that the hon. member was referring to is perhaps the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. Some of the characteristics he described may fit that case. I am not sure if that is true, but it was a rather mysterious person he was describing.

The other point I would make, however, is that the member, as a member of the committee, has a bit of nerve to stand in his place and make criticisms of others when it is in fact his party which is conducting a reprehensible filibuster in order to get out of the $1 million in and out scandal that his party is facing today.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his participation in this important bill, which I think all hon. members would like to see move forward, but with the amendments of the committee, not with the kinds of shenanigans that the government is playing.

During the debate, the chief government whip wanted to talk about the so-called in and out scandal. I am pretty sure that most Canadians are not familiar with what exactly happened and the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer initially found the Conservative Party to be in breach of the Canada Elections Act with regard to this activity, which has subsequently been sustained.

I wonder if the member could inform the House and all Canadians about the seriousness of the matter that has been debated in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians would agree that it is reprehensible behaviour on the part of any political party to disobey and break the law. This is what Elections Canada has charged with regard to the Conservative Party in terms of $1 million of misspending during the election campaign.

I might add, and this is a point that seems to elude the Conservatives, that no other party in the House or in this country has been charged the way the Conservatives have by Elections Canada. It is only the Conservative Party behaviour that has been criticized.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Found in breach.

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

Found in breach. I take that back, Mr. Speaker, found in breach. I will accept that correction.

Only one party, and now my facts are correct, has been found in breach and that party begins with the letter C, the Conservative Party. One cannot help avoid the impression that this is one of the reasons that the Conservative Party is trying to provoke an early election, so that this and many other scandals, such as the one including the finance minister, will be swept under the carpet in the midst of a general election campaign.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-29, especially since this bill is an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans).

The Canada Elections Act has come into question in recent weeks. It always makes me smile to hear the Conservatives in the House boasting about how they have amended the Canada Elections Act. It is very disturbing, and that is why, when the Conservatives introduce a bill like this one, we have to look at it once, twice, three times, four times and go through it with a fine-tooth comb.

As we speak, more than 60 Conservative members still have not received their rebate from the Chief Electoral Officer. They are the only members of the House who have not been reimbursed for their election expenses since the last campaign. They will try and tell us that everything is fine, but there is a good reason they decided to filibuster in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. They do not want to be asked about the errors and omissions the Chief Electoral Officer has found. More than 60 members have not been reimbursed for their latest election expenses, including two ministers from Quebec: the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages and the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

When people—citizens, Quebeckers—read or hear things like this in the media, it does not reflect well on the political elite, particularly seeing as the members of the Bloc Québécois have all been reimbursed and have therefore not been reprimanded by the Chief Electoral Officer. We have to protect that reputation because in the previous Parliament, the Liberals marred politicians' reputation far too often.

Now the Conservatives are making the rest of us look bad. That is what comes of being in power, I suppose. They say that it takes absolute power, but often, as some here know, power can make people crazy, and the Conservatives are verging on it. It is coming. It is getting closer. It started with election spending. They tried to cook the books so they could get more money for the next election campaign. They want to get as much money as possible. They understand how it works, and their actions are based on the premise that the more money one has, the more seats one wins. That is the Conservative way of doing things. The more money you accumulate, the better your chances of coming to power.

We in Quebec are proud that in every election since 1993, we have had a majority, and not thanks to money. We spend as much as the law allows, and not a penny more, because we collect our money $5 at a time. That has always been our way of doing things.

I should point out that Canada adopted its political party financing legislation based on Quebec's, which was brought in by René Lévesque, leader of the Parti Québécois and the sovereignty movement for many years, who cleaned house in Quebec. Canada also cleaned house a few years ago, but some Conservatives got caught yet again, even though they just cleaned house. People have to understand that that's what it means to be a federalist—they have to do everything they can to collect money because that is how elections are won.

Of course we saw that with Option Canada. Maybe, at the time of the last referendum in Quebec, they took money to which they were not entitled. We know that an investigation has revealed that millions of dollars were spent, which was not allowed under the Quebec legislation respecting elections and referendums. But what is done is done. Federalists tell us that what is done is done but that it should not happen the next time. Maybe we should ask the UN to oversee the next referendum in Quebec because it is the only way to stop these people who have no qualms about using public funds to try to win an election.

That is why we have Bill C-29 before us, or should I say before us again. There are three motions in amendment. This bill is the reincarnation of Bill C-54, which was amended by the committee in the previous session. Let us not forget that there was a throne speech. In an attempt to improve their image, the Conservatives presented a new Speech from the Throne. Consequently, certain bills had to be reintroduced, and Bill C-29 is the same as former Bill C-54.

The government is bringing forward three motions to try to counter three amendments made by opposition parties in committee in the last session. I will take the time to explain these three motions. For the Bloc Québécois, two of them are totally unacceptable; there is one however—a minor change—that we will support. It has to be understood that one of these motions deals with expenses, that is the amounts that an individual can contribute to a leadership campaign.

Under the current legislation an individual can contribute $1,000 a year to political parties during a leadership campaign. That amount has been changed to $1,100, but in the legislation it is $1,000. We thought that the bill could contain provisions allowing for annual contributions to a leadership race, as the Canada Elections Act does. The Bloc Québécois enjoys stability, but the other parties in this House often change leaders. We want to give them a chance to raise money for changing their leader instead of for running an election campaign. After the next election, few of these leaders will still be here. I can assure you of that. We are giving them a chance to collect $1,000 a year, pursuant to the current legislation, which, as I was saying, allows individuals to contribute $1,100 a year to election campaigns.

The Conservatives have decided that these contributions can be made once every leadership race instead of once a year. All we are asking for is some logic. We have electoral legislation that allows individual contributions of $1,100 a year. An annual contribution to leadership races should be allowed in order to provide more money for self-promotion and avoid using taxpayer dollars at election time.

This will allow candidates to run their race within their party and to show their true colours. They hide because they do not have the money for a party leadership race. Then, the public discovers them once they come into power and they need taxpayer dollars in order to win the election. That is what the Conservatives do: they try to buy their way in with all sorts of tricks. They must be copying the U.S. model, where we see highly publicized campaigns. Instead of letting us get to know the individuals, prefabricated images are projected in lovely ad campaigns. The candidate, or the leader, is not presented, their image is. That is the new way of doing things. In any event, they will be judged during the next election campaign.

The second motion proposes that a loan become a contribution if it has not been repaid after three years. Obviously, the law does not allow any more time. As was mentioned earlier, the limit is $1,100 a year. Clearly, the law allows loans, but when someone lends another person money, that person must repay the loan at some point. As well, people cannot be allowed to do indirectly what they cannot do directly. We cannot say that we need money, but we need more than $1,100, because we do not have enough friends to give us money. This is often what happens in the other parties. Candidates have enough friends to raise the money they need, but their friends do not have enough money, so the candidates lend themselves money. They take money and lend it to themselves. Once the election campaign is over, these loans have to be repaid.

Candidates cannot use their own money to get elected, because that would be too easy. The Conservatives and Liberals have often used this tactic in recent years to try to get elected. They used their own money to fund their election campaigns. But that is not how things work. After three years, the loan must become a contribution. Because the money has not been repaid, it becomes a contribution, and if that contribution exceeds the $1,100 annual limit—for example, if the loan is for $10,000—then it violates the law. We allowed this minor change.

The last motion proposes that the government reject the amendment introduced by the Bloc Québécois. The government wants to make political parties liable for their candidates' debts. Clearly, if a candidate goes to see his banker because he has no money, but the party does have money, the candidate will be able to fund his election campaign. But if the candidate cannot repay his debts, the party will have to do so.

It makes no sense to adopt this bill in its current form. Candidates must have credibility. If they have to borrow to fund a line of credit until the money comes in, then they should borrow against their own personal assets. That is what Bloc Québécois candidates have always done. We find a way to fund our campaigns, and when we do not have enough money, we take out loans, which we sign for and guarantee ourselves, until we raise enough money. The party does not guarantee our loans, we do. In that way, we may—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry but I have to interrupt the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

The member for Trois-Rivières has the floor.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I am very troubled by the part of the third motion where the government wants to make the party responsible for debts incurred by its candidates. I find that truly unacceptable. In fact, it is as if I went shopping with my credit card and then asked the party to pay the bill. It seems to me that candidates should have enough self-confidence to invest in their own campaign and believe in their ability to win without a party, which is a highly democratic political organization, having to be responsible for debts incurred by anyone who decides to run in an election.

Why a government would propose such a motion is beyond me.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right.

In any event, the law allows us to spend a maximum amount on our campaign. If we wish to exceed the allowable limit, we have to obtain loans from banks and guarantee the repayment of the campaign debt until we find the money through public funding to be in a position to repay the loan.

If we decide that the party will guarantee the debt, that means that everyone who does not have the requisite credibility to obtain support or financing can become candidates. That changes the way of doing things and the selection of candidates.

Personally, I hope we will find a balance. Quebec's rule is as follows: we have to be able to guarantee the debts incurred in our own election campaign. The legislation states that, after three years, the debt becomes a contribution—both guaranteed debts and loans become contributions. If we wish to obey the law, we have to be able to find the necessary money, have a line of credit and provide our own security for the line of credit, since it is our election campaign. If we decide not to, that means that we no longer need the credibility. What does that tell citizens about the candidate? We have to be able to guarantee the expenses of our own campaign election.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives introduced this bill claiming that several Liberal candidates, during the last leadership race, took out large loans in order to circumvent the contribution limits.

In this context, would the Conservative motion to ensure that expenses are repaid by the party solve the problems created by the Liberals during the last leadership race?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my hon. colleague for his question.

In response I would say that it will not solve them at all. First of all, if it involves a bank loan, a credit analysis must be conducted. I am therefore much more comfortable with a candidate who has to go to a bank to obtain financing for his expenses. Some contributions could come in later to help reduce his or her campaign debts.

If the bank gets fleeced, it is the bank's problem and Liberal candidates would not be able to do business with the banks during the next election campaign.

The other possibility is that an individual loans a candidate some money. In such cases, that individual cannot be reimbursed. However, according to the amendments, the law would be clear: after three years, that loan would become a contribution. Anyone who contributes more than the $1,000 allowed by law would be in violation of the Elections Act and face penalties, including possible imprisonment.

I prefer the existing system, because the loan will automatically become a contribution. If someone advances $100,000 to a candidate who does not pay that money back, and that person says “no problem” and cancels the debt, that means that after three years, if he or she is not paid back, that amount becomes a contribution to the election campaign, which is no longer lawful. That becomes a violation of the Elections Act, punishable by law, including prosecution.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of commenting on this bill. I would first like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill. We have been speaking a great deal about the motions, but we agree completely with the substance of the bill. We believe that it is necessary to regulate loans in order to prevent financing limits from being circumvented.

These limits were established after a long debate with the Bloc Québécois, which wanted to put an end to corporate funding and to limit individual contributions, as Quebec did 30 years ago.

I believe that Quebec, in this regard, can truly provide an important and valuable example. We have a problem with the motions, particularly Motion No. 3.

The government wants to make political parties responsible for the debt incurred by their candidates.

My colleagues spoke about this earlier, but I would like to take it one step further. I believe that adopting this motion would lead to some very significant abuses, to the point that a political party could find itself with a great deal of money in its coffers. That could be the case for some political parties, or at least for one we know.

These political parties could tell their candidates to go into debt, that someone or another could lend them some money and that, in any case, three years later, the party would advance the money. They do not need to feel responsible because the party will pay back the money. That means that the candidates would have a millstone around their necks and that they would be chained to their party. They would not have the freedom to say that they felt responsible for their own election campaign because, in any event, the party will pay for them if they do not repay their debt.

These things can be planned. That is why I am saying that things can go farther than my colleagues have acknowledged. People will be able to plan things and borrow money from multiple sources because the party will pay it back in three years. The party has the money.

The Bloc Québécois finds this way of thinking outrageous. We think that candidates have to have a modicum of freedom in their ridings to get themselves elected democratically by their supporters.

We do not dictate who can run for our party. It is important for candidates chosen by their supporters and by people in their ridings to be responsible for their own election campaigns and the money they spend. As a result, our candidates have much closer ties to their communities and are more connected to the voters in their ridings.

We can pretty much eliminate parachuting people into a riding. Parachuting people in is easy. Some people, a week before the election, have never campaigned. This happened in Quebec in the last election, especially with the Conservatives. There were candidates who had never been involved in politics, not at all. At the last minute, the party found some people and told them not to worry because with the three-year legislation, they would not have to pay back the money they borrowed.

Imagine what being told in advance that the debt will be paid off in three years can do to a candidate's accountability. A party can parachute in any candidate at all. The candidate is not accountable and is not even chosen by supporters. We are well aware—experience has shown—that there were candidates who did not even have supporters.

It is much easier for a party to go into a riding and convince people to run if it promises to pay off their debts later.

This motion is truly unacceptable. The government wants to hold the political parties responsible for their candidate's debts. That is unacceptable and I would say it is bordering on immoral. In our capitalist system every individual is responsible for their own debt. Under the new plan, an individual is no longer responsible for his or her debt, but a third party, an entity, in short, a political party is. The party would become responsible for an individual's debt. That makes absolutely no sense.

What is more, five or six lenders could be identified. They could even come from outside the riding and be reimbursed in three years. See how complicated this becomes? The lender would no longer ask for a guarantee. When the Bloc Québécois candidates borrowed money—at one time we needed to do so, but fortunately that is no longer the case since things are going well—they went to the bank and were responsible for the debt. This is fundamental. It gives candidates the chance to be responsible to the electors and to hold their heads high after the election whether they won or not. They do not owe anyone anything and they will settle their debts.

This necessarily forces people to work together, to collaborate and create a much greater sense of belonging within the riding. A candidate has to work with the people who are there to help. This takes many $1,100 contributions and there are not many people who donate that kind of money. In my riding, there are very few people who give $1,100. As my colleague was saying earlier, we collect donations of $5, $10 or $20 and that is what we use for our election campaign. This creates a democratic link with the people in our riding and that is what really counts. If we no longer have that and can borrow $80,000 in one shot—as we saw a candidate do and then switch parties—without paying it back, this becomes institutionalized and there is no longer any need to pay money back because the party will take care of it. That does not make any sense. It is wrong and we cannot accept it.

The first amendment made in committee makes sense to us since all the contribution limits currently in the Canada Elections Act are annual, except in the case of candidates for party leadership. Contributions should be annual and should not be contributions for a leadership campaign. It is a well-known and perfectly correct old habit that every January, in the new year, people can once again give money to the political parties. Why would it not be the same for leadership campaigns, which do last from one year to the next? This would let anyone who wants to support a candidate give again after the year ends. One year is long enough to assume people would be able to give again.

We think that Motion No. 1 is very important and we want to keep it that way. We are not against the idea of the annual contribution, but against the fact that parties would be responsible for contributions that come from personal loans. This could lead to dishonesty. We could end up with such a law in a few years and we could plan out all the loans taken by a candidate. This is completely unacceptable. We are against this motion and will keep voting against it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has raised some very interesting points in regard to some of the things that have happened, particularly in the Conservative Party with the loan situation in regard to the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. I think that is a very disturbing situation that has occurred.

In debate we have spent a fair bit of time talking about the filibuster in the procedure and House affairs committee with regard to what is called the in-and-out scam, whereby the Conservative Party transferred moneys to individual candidates and then the candidates would give it back to the party. They then would claim the expense as advertising. As the Chief Electoral Officer has found, the Conservatives in fact are in breach of the Canada Elections Act, it amounts to about $1 million, and it means that they have overspent.

I wonder if the member can tell the House whether, in the Bloc's experience in the procedure and House affairs committee, the government is prepared to stand up and be accountable for what it did and what the Conservative Party in fact was found in breach of with regard to the swapping of money--or it looks like money laundering--in order to get additional advantage for the Conservative Party in a democratic system.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that my Liberal colleague has raised this point. Indeed, it seems that a piece of legislation can generally be circumvented. That is the case at this time. Although the Canada Elections Act has a relatively rigid framework, we see that it can be circumvented. In any case, some people try to do so.

Instead of allowing more gaps in Bill C-29, we should instead try to make it impossible to take out any money using the Conservative tactic, in other words, by taking money from the central fund to pay for things in the ridings. Greater attention needs to paid to this.

We get the impression that the federal government made the Canada Elections Act more rigid, but now wants it to be relaxed, because it was made a little too strict. The Bloc Québécois believes that the more rigid the legislation, the greater the chances of people being honest.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a question about loans. We have heard allegations and we have heard some talk today about loans that were made, loans that were made as a way to circumvent, but loans are a legitimate means of providing funds. However, when loans are not paid back, suddenly they become a disguised contribution.

Now we know that in the past this has been a practice used by certain parties. We will not name those parties. I think everybody knows which party that is. However, I would ask the hon. member this question: why do we not ban loans entirely? How does the member feel about that?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question, but I do not think loans should be eliminated entirely.

We must bear in mind that some candidates come from areas where they are not popular, but they want to go into politics anyway. They will not necessarily borrow lots of money. Some parties raised very little money and could not even receive rebates from the Chief Electoral Officer.

It is practical for this person to take out a loan in his or her name. If it is not paid back, that individual's credit rating alone would be affected. I think that is the existing system and, generally speaking, that is how people should pay back their loans. If they do not pay them back, they are the ones who will suffer.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans). The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. However, the government has brought back some measures that we had already amended in committee.

The Bloc Québécois reserves its decision regarding the final vote on this legislation. I will be brief in dealing with its content.

The bill provides that all loans to political entities, including mandatory disclosure of terms, and the identity of all lenders and loan guarantors, must be uniform and transparent. Also, unions and corporations, save for some exceptions, would be prohibited from making contributions under the Federal Accountability Act, and also from lending money. The amount of loans, loan guarantees and contributions that individuals can make cannot exceed the limit prescribed in the Federal Accountability Act, namely $1,100. Finally, only financial institutions and political entities would be allowed to make loans beyond the contribution limit, and only at commercial rates of interest. The rules for the treatment of unpaid loans to ensure candidates cannot walk away from unpaid loans would be tightened. The bill also provides that loans that remain unpaid after 18 months would be considered political contributions.

The problem is with the last point. Riding associations—or, in the absence thereof, the party itself—would be responsible for paying back debts that their candidates fail to reimburse. Several of my colleagues here in the House, particularly my Bloc Québécois colleagues, have said how absurd that is. In fact, the government introduced this motion, as well as two others, to counter three amendments made by the opposition parties in committee. By putting this motion forward, the Conservative government is rejecting the Bloc Québécois amendment.

Political parties—and I think we have heard this several times now—would become responsible for debts contracted by their candidates. The problem with the governing party's motion is that political parties are not really involved in contracts between candidates and their financial institutions. In Quebec, that is between the candidate and his or her bank or credit union. Political parties do not get involved in that aspect of their candidates' election campaigns.

With this motion, the government is trying to make parties responsible for their candidates' debts, which is completely illogical because parties cannot limit their candidates' spending. There is a limit, a cap, but candidates may borrow money for their own campaigns at their own discretion or that of their organizations. The party is not involved in the transaction.

A candidate can therefore go into debt. Say a candidate borrows $60,000 from a bank or credit union. The party cannot stop candidates from doing this. Legally, candidates can do this. The party would then end up with that candidate's debt, as well as that of other candidates who, unfortunately, cannot or will not pay the money back. This is akin to a law allowing someone to borrow money without informing the guarantor. When the credit union manager asks for the name of the guarantor, the borrower could say that it is his neighbour. The neighbour would then be responsible for the debt if the borrower did not pay it back. That makes no sense at all.

Of course, it would be wrong to assume that all the candidates in an election are dishonest. On the contrary, I hope that the vast majority are honest. But we are opening the door to a situation where someone runs for election, goes deeply into debt and does not win a seat. He knows that if he cannot repay his debts, the party will be saddled with the debt. A political party would be in serious difficulty if even a few people could not or would not shoulder that debt.

When I fought my first election campaign, the Bloc Québécois in Richmond—Arthabaska did not have much money in its coffers. I was chosen as the candidate on the day the 2000 election was called. I had to borrow money. I took out a loan to fund my election campaign, and I knew what I was getting into.

I knew that after the election, I would be in debt. I hoped to get elected so that I would be able to repay my debt fairly quickly, but I lost by about 300 votes that time.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I thank my colleagues for their expressions of sympathy, but it was just a temporary setback, Mr. Speaker. I won my seat in 2004.

To make a long story short, after the election campaign, I no longer had a job, and I was in a lot of debt. As any responsible person would do, I made sure I repaid that debt. It never occurred to me that my party should take on that responsibility.

Of course, I had received an election rebate, because my expenses were in order, but I had still borrowed money, because in our riding, the party did not have much money at the time. Things have changed a great deal since then. There must not be very many cases where candidates, at least Bloc Québécois candidates, do not repay their debts. If a party were saddled with all its candidates' debts, the party supporters would not be very happy.

Earlier, one of my colleagues was saying that in his riding—and it is that way for the most part in Bloc Québécois ridings—supporters quite often give small amounts of money. We have a multitude of supporters who take part in fundraising activities. They organize spaghetti nights at $10, $20 or $25 a head as a fundraiser because in our culture, we do not rely on big companies, even though the legislation has now changed for the better—thankfully.

I remember a time when the former prime minister, during a leadership race that was more like a coronation, received $100,000 from the Irving Oil Corporation. I can assure you that I have never received that kind of money, even when the legislation allowed it. Where I come from our supporters would be insulted if they were told that all the money they raised was going to be used to pay off a candidate's debt, if the candidate defaulted, because it was the party's responsibility to do so.

Bill C-29 is not a bad bill, since it corrects some of the shortcomings in the Accountability Act, the former Bill C-2, which the government wanted to pass so quickly that it unwittingly, or not—I am not sure—forgot the ethical problems.

That was at a time when the Conservative government probably thought, as many analysts did, that their mandate would last a year or a year and a half. They presented a few priorities—I believe there were five at first—saying they would start with that. In the two years the government has been in place, it has not seemed sure what direction to take. Nonetheless, I believe it does know: it wants to go back to the polls because it does not have any plans that would enable it to go on much longer.

The government thought it would not last long. It wanted to quickly fulfill its so-called promises, but in its haste it left out some parts. That is why we now have Bill C-29: to fill the gaps.

Bill C-29 seeks to prevent individuals from bypassing campaign financing rules.

Since I am being signalled that I have only two minutes left, I will be brief.

The Bloc Québécois believes it is necessary to regulate loans in order to prevent people from getting around the financing limits. In fact, it is ironic that this government is presenting such a bill, since the Conservative Party is currently being investigated by Elections Canada, which is refusing to rebate the campaign expenses for 67 Conservative candidates who ran during the last election campaign. There are nine members from Quebec, two ministers from Quebec and a secretary of state from Quebec. The latter is not really a minister, although he has a limousine. A secretary of state is not considered a real minister. Those people are among that group.

Here is how they do it: money is transferred to the ridings for advertising. It was supposed to be for local advertising, but in reality, it was used for national advertising. The candidate who received the money never once saw his face on television or in the media. It really was for national advertising. The riding associations sent money back to the national level to pay for the advertising.

This strategy allowed the party to raise its limits for campaign spending by $1.2 million. That is a considerable sum, which is why it is so important at this time, on the eve of a possible election campaign, to avoid this kind of ploy, and ensure that the Conservative Party cannot repeat the same gimmick, which allowed them to have higher spending limits for campaign advertising than any other party normally would have.

I would like to point out that the Conservative Party accused the NDP and the Liberals of doing the same thing. However, Elections Canada said that those parties really gave their candidates an opportunity to have local advertising. That is the difference.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, talking about how loans can be used in such a way that can distort the political process and why it is so important that we bring forward Bill C-29, I just thought the hon. member would find it interesting to look at something, which we cannot fix because we did not make the legislation retroactive, and that would be some of the outstanding loans from the Liberal leadership race.

The member for Kings—Hants has a $200,000 loan, over 35% of his campaign funding was based on loans; the member for York Centre has a $300,000 loan, over 59% of his funding was based on loans; Bob Rae has $845,000 in loans; and the Leader of the Opposition has $455,000 in loans. Whether these loans were ever repaid is something that is of great importance to all of us here and why Bill C-29 is so important.

I would ask the member to comment on those huge loans.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, that is why we support the principle of Bill C-29. The government introduced this bill supposedly because several candidates in the Liberal Party of Canada leadership race borrowed large sums of money in order to circumvent the limits on contributions. What the government is not telling in all this is that its own leader, the Prime Minister himself, failed to make complete disclosure of contributions for the 2002 leadership race.

On October 2, 2002, the Globe and Mail reported that the Prime Minister had spent $1.1 million on his race for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance. It stated further that he had published an incomplete list of contributions.

We on this side of the House would be very interested to know what the total amount of these contributions is exactly. Who were the contributors for that leadership race? This government wants an election to be called. It ran in the last election on a platform of openness and transparency. It should do the same in the next campaign. We would like to know.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska will have two minutes left in his time for debate when Bill C-29 comes back before the House.

The House resumed from February 11 consideration of Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a surprise opportunity to speak on this particular bill. I thought I would take an approach on this bill which is speaking from, if you will, the perspective of a member in this House who has been here for 10 years.

I have gone through four elections. I represent a riding in the east end of Toronto called Scarborough--Guildwood. When I was first elected, it was referenced as Scarborough East. Commenting on raising funds over those four elections, possibly about to be a fifth election, it is getting more and more difficult.

My riding is a riding of extremes. One can buy a $2 million house in the riding. There are some people in the riding who are quite wealthy. It is clearly a very small group of people. There is also quite a substantial segment of the riding where people are comfortably affluent, live in pretty nice houses and have pretty decent jobs.

By far and away, the vast majority of people are hard-working people trying to make ends meet, a population that is really from all over the globe. There is a considerable Tamil population, a considerable Muslim, Indian population, a considerable Pakistani population and a considerable Caribbean population.

Among those folks, plus some of those who are homegrown, these folks are just trying to make rent. That is all they are concerned about. They do not have time to dream about other things, other than just making rent. To propose raising funds among these folks is just nonsense.

Over the course of these past four elections, I have found, increasingly, that whatever fundraising I do, I have to do it outside the riding. Just simply, folks are not prepared to give. That is rather unfortunate. Maybe other members' experience parallels that, and maybe it does not. Some ridings are clearly more affluent than other ridings, and in some ridings it is clearly easier to raise funds. In my particular case, it is not easy to raise funds.

We are in this kind of half-pregnant situation, where we have severely curtailed the ability of members to raise money. Essentially, we have eliminated the ability to raise money from unions, we have eliminated the ability to raise money from corporations, we have limited the amount that we can raise from individuals, and that is, frankly, starting to take its toll.

Now members end up having to look at lending themselves money in order to finance a campaign, whether it is a local riding campaign or whether it is in fact a leadership campaign. That has created some more distortions. Again, it is kind of a half-pregnant solution on another half-pregnant solution.

To wit, we have this bill, a politically motivated bill, no doubt, but nevertheless not really a bill that takes into account the realities of being a member of Parliament and running for office. That is a considerable sacrifice for anyone in this Chamber, whether they are a government member or not. It is a considerable sacrifice to families, it is a considerable sacrifice to individuals, frequently their health, and it is almost inevitably a sacrifice to their personal financial well-being.

Nevertheless, we are here. We volunteer to do this. We are all adults. We all know what we are doing. I do not think the Canadian public should be shedding tears for any one of the 308 of us who choose this life.

Nevertheless, I do reiterate the point that fundraising for members and fundraising for leadership campaigns has become more and more difficult over time and in large part, we have been doing it to ourselves by the limitations that we have imposed upon members. There are arguments where people say, well, this is actually a good thing. This is openness, this is transparency in democracy, and all the rest of the stuff.

I frankly hate fundraising whether it is a big event where we have to get people to give us a cheque or an individual baking sale where we have to sell cookies or silly nonsense like that. I was elected to be a legislator, not a fundraiser.

In the United States this distortion has gone way out of whack. In the past week or so, Hillary Clinton had to lend her own campaign $5 million. In months past, John McCain had to actually take his fundraising list, monetize it and give it to the bank as collateral for a $3 million loan just to keep his campaign alive.

We see enormous amounts of money poured into U.S. campaigns for the presidency, for the senate, for congress. I was talking to one congressman a while back and he has to raise $10,000 a week just to simply be prepared for his two year election cycle.

I would submit, and I hope that all members would agree, that in U.S. politics, money has become so dominant it distorts policy. That needs to be steered away from literally at all costs. In part, America has lost its moral leadership in the world because of the influence of money.

I do not want anybody to be confused that we are in any kind of similar situation in Canada. We have gone in the opposite direction. We are making it more difficult for members and leadership candidates to raise money. Because we are doing that, we are getting into all kinds of distortions, one of which the bill tries to address.

I would dearly love it if frankly Elections Canada would simply pay the campaign costs, to just do it. We end up getting some portion from Elections Canada. That portion gets split with the party in some instances and in some instances it does not. Then we raise certain amounts of money and tax receipts are given.

In some respects that money is also taxpayer subsidized. Any money we are short for the particular campaign, we end up lending ourselves money, generally through a financial institution, then we have to fundraise in order to pay off the loan. The receipts we receive are tax receipted and a portion ends up ultimately getting paid by the taxpayer.

When we add it up and subtract it out, the taxpayers and effectively the government are probably paying about 75% of the cost of a campaign in any event. Why do we not just go the whole route and have campaigns funded by Elections Canada. That way we would get out of the whole conundrum of eternal fundraising and the eternal frustration that this bill frankly represents. It represents frustration for everyone here.

I would almost like to take a poll of the members sitting here who actually say they like fundraising. If they do, they can do mine. They are welcome to it. I had this strange idea that I was elected to be a legislator and not a fundraiser.

People might say that this could get us into all kinds of situations, how much individual candidates receive, et cetera. Certainly, at a riding level, that amount is pre-established by Elections Canada and I frankly do not see why that is a complicated exercise.

Leadership campaigns, I am prepared to say are a more complicated exercise, but I do not really see why we could not do something similar to that.

We will go through this exercise of looking at the bill. I know our party will be supporting the bill if certain amendments are proposed and passed.

Frankly, I see it as a waste of legislative time. We should bite the bullet and have elections funded by the--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood. I had given him notice. Questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I am a little out of breath, because I had to run back to my place.

I will finally have a chance to speak on the bill before us, contrary to what I had been told. I welcome this opportunity. Needless to say that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill.

With respect to Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans), we believe in the continued importance of measures to ensure that the rule whereby a cap is applied to contributions by individuals is not circumvented through the use of loans.

We do not agree, however, with all the motions to amend the bill which was approved at committee.

The first of these motions aims to return the text to its original form. Contributions to a leadership campaign would be limited to a total of $1,000 for each leadership candidate, although in committee, it was amended to make it $1,000 per year. We do not agree with that amendment. Everywhere else in the legislation, the principle of contributions is based on calendar years. We believe that if a different criterion is established, that could cause confusion, and there is no particular reason why an individual should not be allowed to contribute to the same campaign in the course of two separate calendar years.

The second motion adjusts the dates from which one would calculate the three year timeframe allowed to pay back a debt, failing which it will be considered a contribution. That is changing. For instance, in a nomination race, a candidate for party leadership would have three years from the end of the race, rather than from voting day, and the party would have three years from the end of the fiscal year in which the loan was made, rather than from the day that the amount is due. These are minor amendments proposed by the motion, which was passed in committee. We think they are acceptable.

Motion No. 3 is the one we most strongly oppose. The government wants to reject an amendment put forward by the Bloc Québécois that aimed to make the political parties responsible for the debts incurred by their candidates. Of course, we find it completely ridiculous that third parties can be saddled with a loan of which they have no knowledge and which they never guaranteed.

I will explain the implications of this government motion. For example, a candidate runs for a party and incurs a debt of $60,000 with his bank to finance his election campaign. The candidate loses the election. He might have won, but let us assume—it is more plausible—that he was defeated. After three years, if he has not yet repaid his debt to the bank, the party will have to repay it. I do not understand where this completely new principle comes from that would allow a debt to be transferred to a third party that has nothing to do with the transaction.

It is like going to my banker to take out a loan and telling him that my neighbour is my guarantor. My neighbour is not aware of this and has no way of knowing, but he is my guarantor. I tell my banker that if I do not repay him, he can go and ask my neighbour to repay him. That is absolutely absurd.

We hope this motion will be rejected because it will do nothing to clean up politics. On the contrary, it will take away that responsibility from candidates who stand for election.

However, we are in favour of the overall bill. We believe that we must prevent the law from being circumvented because candidates in a leadership race or an election could obtain financing through loans that might never be repaid.

Several candidates in the Liberal Party leadership race obtained large loans from individuals and financial institutions. For example, Bob Rae borrowed $700,000, $580,000 at 5% interest from the former Vice-president of Power Corporation, John Rae, and $125,000 from himself.

According to the Ottawa Citizen of May 9, 2007, the current Leader of the Opposition borrowed $650,000: $150,000 from Mamdouh Stephanos, $100,000 from Marc de la Bruyère, $50,000 from Stephen Bronfman, $50,000 from Roderick Bryden, and $25,000 from Christopher Hoffmann.

If there is no provision to ensure the repayment of these loans and if they are never repaid, they end up being disguised contributions. We must prevent this situation.

The Conservative government is not really in a position to be talking about ethics. Its ethics and transparency track record has not been very impressive, and this has been clear since the Prime Minister's leadership campaign. We still do not have a complete list of donors to his fundraising campaign. But beyond the funding of recent campaigns, we see that during the last election campaign, some 60, maybe even 70, Conservative members broke the Elections Canada rules, and there is now a case before the courts.

Of these 60 or so members, several were from Quebec, including some ministers. It is a bit surprising to see a party that claims to set an example in ethics and transparency engaged in a legal dispute with Elections Canada.

This government is obviously being influenced. A former lobbyist was appointed defence minister in the first cabinet. The minister has since been transferred to the Canada Revenue Agency. Communications director and lobbyist Sandra Buckler was also caught in a very questionable situation. Contracts have been awarded to political friends. And recently, this week and last week, there was talk in the House about a contract awarded by the Minister of Finance, at a high price, just for writing a speech that was somewhat questionable in form and in substance. Funds have been used for partisan purposes and appointments.

Since I do not have much time left, I will give a list of Conservative cronies who were appointed by the government: on April 12, 2006, Jim Gouk, a former Conservative member, was appointed to the board of directors of NAV Canada; on April 21, 2006, Gwyn Morgan, a Conservative fundraiser, was appointed chair of the new Public Appointments Commission; on July 27, 2006, Kevin Gaudet, a Conservative organizer who worked for the Prime Minister's leadership campaign, in 2004, was appointed to the Canada Pension Plan Review Tribunal; Brian Richard Bell, a Conservative organizer in New Brunswick, was appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick; on September 18, 2006, Jacques Léger, a former interim president of the Progressive Conservative Party, was given a judgeship in the Superior Court of Quebec for the district of Montreal; on October 31, 2006, Raminder Gill, a former Conservative candidate who was defeated in Mississauga—Streetsville to make room for floor crosser Wajid Khan, was appointed as a citizenship judge; on November 1, 2006, Howard Bruce, a Conservative candidate for Portneuf in 2004 and 2006, was appointed to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada; on January 25, 2007, Loyola Sullivan, co-president of the Prime Minister's leadership bid, was named Canada's ambassador for fisheries conservation.

Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to finish the list. I would have needed a good half an hour.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member. It is now time for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since he still has a bit of time left, I would like to ask my hon. colleague to continue to list the names of some of the people who were appointed after the Conservative government was elected just over two years ago. I wonder if he can continue to give us the names of people who were appointed by this government.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

We could continue with the matter of the partisan appointments of judges, and immigration and refugee board commissioners.

The Prime Minister changed the appointment process in order to be able to appoint the candidates of his choice. In the case of the appointment of judges, the Conservative government changed the composition of the selection committee in order to ensure a preponderance of votes. The four members of the selection committee who were appointed by the government hold the majority of votes, while there are only three seats for independent members who represent the Canadian Bar Association, the provincial bar and the provincial justice department. Thus, we have a committee made up of three independent members and four members appointed by this government that essentially control all the appointments.

Regarding the appointments of commissioners sitting on the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Conservative government again politicized the selection committee by reserving the right to appoint two of the seven committee members.

In both cases, the government abandoned the principle of appointments based on merit in order to have the flexibility to appoint either party cronies or people who share the same right-wing ideology.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on a couple of the statements the member made.

When one is looking for capable, qualified people, it is a tough chore to automatically exclude everybody who has ever been involved in any form of support of a political party. The fact is that we urge our citizens to be involved.

The member mentioned Mr. Gouk, a colleague of mine who used to sit as a member of Parliament. He was appointed. Jim Gouk happened to have been an air traffic controller. He was more qualified than any of the other applicants. I do not know why anyone would disqualify him just because he happened at one time to have been a Conservative. I know where the member is coming from. It is a tough chore.

What I object to is when the Liberals used to appoint people whose only qualification was that they were members or supporters of the Liberal Party.

However, in this particular case, and it is one on which I have personal knowledge, there is probably nobody in the country as knowledgeable about air traffic control, having worked in that business and kept up to speed with it, than Jim Gouk.

I understand where the member is coming from as I used to sit on that side. One has some sympathy for the perception but in this case the perception is wrong.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has indeed summed up the situation well. He spoke of one case. If there were only one case, it would not be a problem, but it is always the case. The government of Stephen Harper awarded a communications contract—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber should think about not referring to other members by name, but rather by title or by the name of their riding. No need to read up on it, he already knows the rules.

The hon. member may finish answering the question put to him.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I realized my mistake the moment I saw you rise, Mr. Speaker.

The Conservative government awarded a communications contract to Marie-Josée Lapointe, who was on this government's transition team. This contract goes against the spirit of the government's own Federal Accountability Act, since political staff are not allowed to receive contracts from the government in place for 12 months after they leave. The contract was eventually cancelled halfway through, following a hard fight in the House.

When Bill C-2 was passed, the point was raised also that the issue of whistleblower protection had not been covered. In addition, the reform of the Access to Information Act has yet to be covered. So, in terms of ethics, it is falling short.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, who gave a fairly exhaustive list. I am certain that if we were to continue, we could go on for quite some time. But there are other things in this bill that we need to discuss.

For us in the Bloc, each riding, each candidate, is independent. Candidates are responsible for their own funding. Fundraising is the responsibility of the riding, not the national party. We are therefore responsible for raising money, but we cannot exceed certain limits, such as $1,000 per person.

In my riding, I do not receive $1,000 contributions. Very seldom does someone give $1,000. In fact, I have never received such a contribution in 15 years as a parliamentarian and five terms of office. People contribute $5, $20, $100 at spaghetti-thons and events attended by party members and people who take an interest in our work and come out to help us with the upcoming election campaign.

Election campaigns are coming fast and furious. We had elections in 2004 and 2006, and we could go to the polls again in 2008. It is not easy to raise money quickly, but you have to try. Sitting members and their executives have to do whatever they can. The law must be obeyed. We have passed a law on ethics. It is pointless if we do not obey it. People no longer believe in ethics, because of all the scandals that have occurred and will continue to occur. We have not seen the end of scandals.

There are currently 67 cases involving Conservative members only. Only Conservatives are involved. The Liberal, the Bloc and the NDP members have all had their expenses reimbursed. Of those 67 cases, three Conservative ministers are currently involved in legal action. You have to wonder. Certainly, we will vote for this bill, even though we are more or less in favour of some things, because we need it and more. Otherwise, the Conservatives might continue to do anything.

The other important aspect is that the party has no control over candidates' expenses. If I decide to borrow $50,000 or $60,000, I do not have to ask my party for permission. I can do so in my own name, spend the money and never pay it back. It becomes the party's responsibility. The party has to come after me to recover the $50,000 or $60,000.

If 67 cases are being filed against these 67 Conservative members in this situation, that is one expensive legal bill. Money is being wasted for nothing and they are displaying a total lack of ethics, which is unacceptable. Election campaigns must be run within our means. For example, if I collect $30,000 or $35,000, I will organize my campaign to stay within the budget I have. End of discussion. We will not use as many signs. We will work with the money we have and campaign with the money available to us that we honestly collected. That is extremely important.

It is true that it is difficult to campaign, but we always manage to do so by means of fundraising events and by helping fellow MPs with riding expenses. That is how we manage to get enough money to see a campaign through.

Of course, we do not collect $20,000-dollar or $30,000-dollar donations, since that is against the law, but we know that is done on the sly, which is unacceptable. This must stop. The law must be obeyed. This must never happen again: 67 Conservative members being sued. We did not make that decision. The Chief Electoral Officer, whom the Conservatives appointed themselves, decided there was a case that should be prosecuted.

Obviously, any bill that can improve the situation or make all the members of this House a little more ethical must be supported.

As my colleague said, it is unfortunate that the committee already adopted three motions unanimously, and then all of a sudden they are no longer in the bill. They are there, but they have been changed. This is dangerous, because it leaves us open to a repeat of things that have happened in the past, which would not be good.

Can we not run clean campaigns? Hanging more signs will not get more people elected. It is not because a person has fewer signs up that people will not vote for him; that is not true. If we do our job the way we are supposed to, if we properly represent our constituents, if we provide good services for our constituents and do a good job here, in the House of Commons, I do not think a voter would hesitate to vote for a candidate because he is missing three or four signs. If the voter knows that I have been honest and that I obtained financing honestly, he will encourage me and encourage my ideologies.

It is too bad that the three motions that were adopted in committee are no longer there in the same form. That is often how things are done here. Everything is changed, everything is altered, and then they try to downplay it in order to act unethically. That is not acceptable to anyone in the House. It is also undesirable because it destroys what confidence our electors have. They are already very sensitive and concerned about whether we are doing clear, clean, accurate work.

We could shed light on all our finances. In my riding, people can find out who gave me donations over $100. We have lists and they are available. Everyone should do it like that. That should be how it is done everywhere. In this way, we cannot be accused of being unethical. I think it is high time that things changed around here.

For 15 years I have been watching my colleagues in action and have seen some of the so-called in and out schemes. There are so many it can scarcely be imagined. For us, though, it is forbidden. The Bloc Québécois has been applying Quebec law for a long time because we want to abide by this ethical code, which is very important. We want to show that we are responsible because we do not want to put our party in an embarrassing position. Our party is therefore very clean and clear in Quebec. We have actually already campaigned on this issue. People can check at any time, therefore, whether our election campaigns have been conducted properly or not.

We must be responsible. We cannot simply borrow money left and right. Think of the people who cannot get paid back. Think of the people who borrowed money like Bob Rae, who borrowed $705,000. Just think what will happen if he fails to pay this money back. It is unethical and that cannot be accepted. I wish we could open the books of the Conservatives across the aisle and see how they conducted their campaign in 2006. There could well be some big surprises and maybe one of the biggest scandals ever witnessed in the House.

The House resumed 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.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for explaining to the House how it is possible to collect funds honestly. We all practice this way of doing things. However, I wish to thank her for explaining it to the House because I believe that this is not the practice of all parties in this House.

An amendment such as the third amendment to this bill makes it possible to be truly Machiavellian. For very honest parties, it would mean that candidates could put their party into debt. The parties that want debt to be incurred at the beginning could very well tell the candidates to take on debt that the party would pay back later. That could be disastrous for both sides.

I would like my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord to tell us about the horrible consequences of adopting the amendment and how the members' monies could be manipulated.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi.

That is probably what happened. We will know more after the inquiry. At this point, the entire Conservative Party is the subject of an inquiry. I believe that the party told its members to borrow money that it would pay back. That is downright illegal. Furthermore, it distances candidates from the people. Being close to the people means organizing all kinds of events, such as cocktails for business people and less costly events to attract people, to invite them to meet us so they can get to know us and understand our political party and what we have to offer.

In my opinion, that is a better way of doing things, much better than taking out a $60,000 loan that the party will pay back later and campaigning with that money. That is totally illegal and unacceptable, and it is not at all close to the people. That is not what people are looking for. When they find out about things like this, it reflects badly on all politicians. That is the problem. We all pay for that. It makes us all look like thieves, even though we are not. The Bloc has never done that kind of thing. As I said earlier, we raise funds in accordance with Quebec law that has been in place for 30 years.

The sad thing is that this affects how people see politicians. Voters now think we are the lowest of the low; they like us less than car salespeople. Imagine that. We have a lot of catching up to do. We have a lot of work ahead of us. We need ethics, and we need it now. This bill has sidestepped ethics yet again. Yes, we will vote for the bill because it has some good things in it. However, the Conservatives are still trying to get around some issues so they can do what they did in 2006 once again.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine for a brief question or comment.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. My Bloc colleague's speech was quite interesting.

I would like to ask her if she has other examples, besides the 67 MPs, of unsuccessful Conservative candidates suspected of having violated the Canada Elections Act in 2006, based on a ruling by the Chief Electoral Officer and not the opinion of the opposition parties.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The member for Rivière-du-Nord has 30 seconds left.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I will be very brief as I do not have much time remaining.

I cannot provide all the names. However, just imagine that three ministers, people who manage huge budgets every year, committed fraud or are under suspicion of fraud. This is very serious. We are talking about people who manage taxpayers' money. It is incredible: 67 members of Parliament. We will see how this plays out.

This may be why the Conservatives are in a hurry to hold an election: to hide what exactly happened in 2006 and to prevent it from coming to light. I can say one thing for certain: we will be watching them in the next election campaign.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in the debate on Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans).

Several members have already talked about this bill and have explained its principal objectives, one of which is to create a uniform and transparent disclosure system for all loans to political entities, including mandatory disclosure of terms and the identity of all lenders and loan guarantors. I would point out that such provisions already exist in the Canada Elections Act.

The previous government formed by the Liberal Party of Canada passed a bill on election financing that sought to limit the role of corporations and unions in election financing, initiating the most significant contribution limit reduction in Canadian history.

This bill targets funding for candidates in leadership races, byelections and general elections, but the law passed under the previous Liberal government already contained Elections Canada's requirements for loan disclosure.

During the last Liberal leadership race, which took place in 2006, all candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada exceeded Elections Canada's requirements for the disclosure of loans under the Canada Elections Act.

That is not at all the case for the current Prime Minister. He has refused to disclose the identities of those who funded his campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party in 2002. The Conservatives, as we have seen so many times on other issues, are trying to deceive Canadians.

In the previous session of Parliament, Bill C-29 was Bill C-54. When the Conservative government introduced this bill, it gave misleading information about the current legislation on political party financing, and the Conservative members continue to mislead Canadians every time they talk about Bill C-29. The Conservatives imply that the current legislation—I am not talking about their bill, but about the legislation in effect today, which was adopted by Parliament when the Liberal Party of Canada was in power—allows secret loans and that candidates are not required to disclose a loan, the amount of that loan, the name of the creditor or the name of the guarantor.

Under the legislation that is in effect today and has been since 2004, candidates must provide Elections Canada with information on all loans they receive, whether they are running for the leadership of a party or in a byelection or general election.

Canadians get annoyed when they cannot trust what their own government is telling them.

During the last election campaign, this Conservative government boasted and said it was whiter than white, whiter than snow, and that it would be accountable, transparent and open. Canadians just have to read and listen to what the government is saying about the current legislation on financing for political parties and candidates. It is claiming that someone running for the leadership of a party today or last year or the year before could borrow money without having to disclose who the creditor was, how much the loan was for or who the guarantor was. It is sad.

This government is going even further. With its bill, the government wants an association or party to be held responsible for a candidate's unpaid debts, even if the local riding association or the party was not aware of the loan and had not guaranteed it. It would be like having a brother in another city who takes out a loan. I do not know my brother borrowed money, but because we have the same last name and share the same blood and DNA, I would automatically be liable for the loan. I would have to repay his loan if he went bankrupt and did not repay it.

The opposition parties have amended this bill. The governing party has even amended its own bill, which is interesting. I would like to provide some information about that.

The Conservative government proposed an amendment to its own bill, thereby admitting that its Bill C-29—which had been Bill C-54 in the previous session of Parliament—was not perfect. The Conservatives proposed amendments to ensure that loans and suretyship contracts paid back during the same calendar year are not included in the total calculation of donations for that year. Consider the following example. If an individual loans $1,000 to a candidate in February and the candidate pays that amount back in April, the individual who loaned the money would be permitted to guarantee another $1,000 before the end of the fiscal year. This was not included in the original bill. The Conservative members put forward an amendment because it made sense and was reasonable. All the parties—the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, and the Liberal Party—all supported the government's amendment. The Liberal Party, supported by the Bloc, proposed an amendment to make it possible to make donations every year to candidates for party leadership and not just a single donation to one particular candidate, as set out by existing legislation. This was because a leadership race can extend over more than one calendar year. Finally, the Bloc, supported by the Liberals and the NDP, put forward an amendment that removed one clause of the bill that required political parties to pay back any loans incurred by its candidates that were not paid back to the creditors. As if a candidate could take out a loan without notifying officials from the party or riding association.

It was suggested that he or she could then declare bankruptcy and the party would be forced to pay back any debts incurred, even if the party had not approved the debt from the beginning. The Conservatives opposed that amendment and introduced the motions at the report stage for—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. The hon. member for Joliette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to an amendment introduced by the Bloc Québécois, saying that it was supported by the NDP and the Liberals at committee. Is it always like that with the Liberals? Does she know if the NDP changed its position?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that the NDP still supports the bill as amended in committee and reported back to the House. We would have to check how loyal that support is, however. Loyal is not necessarily a word I use often in reference to the NDP. I find that NDP members are not always very loyal to their own party's constitution. In Quebec, we can see sovereigntists run for the NDP, which is the most centralizing party I have ever known. I was so shocked. I realize that this does not address directly the question, but it does address it in part.

The NDP claims to be a federalist party, yet it recruits sovereigntists to run for and represent the NDP in Quebec. I would like the leader of the NDP and the new member for Outremont to explain that contradiction to the Quebec people, be they sovereignists, nationalist or federalists. How can they explain such a contradiction?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this debate on Bill C-29, which is in fact the amended version of Bill C-54 that was debated in the previous session. All parties agreed to pick up the debate where we left off before resuming this new session. As was the case in the previous session, we will support the bill even though, and I will come back to this, we think it is important that a number of the amendments we made to it—I am talking about the opposition parties, but the Bloc Québécois in particular—be maintained despite the government's desire to drop them for reasons that are completely unclear to me.

We were in favour of this bill and we still are. The purpose of the bill is to prevent individuals from bypassing campaign financing rules. The bill now includes a ceiling of $1,100 for individuals. Companies and corporations are no longer able to make donations to political associations. We agree with this principle that has existed in Quebec for 30 years now. This was one of the first accomplishments of the Parti Québécois under the leadership of René Lévesque.

As such, we agree with the idea that once a number of rules are in place governing political party fundraising and the amounts that individual voters can contribute, people should not have opportunities to get around the law by taking out loans, thereby sidestepping the will of Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, to ensure that the rules of the game are more or less the same for all political parties.

I have been watching what is going on with the primaries in the United States and the mind-boggling amounts of money the candidates are spending. This is not even the race for the presidency of the United States. These are just the Democratic and Republican nomination races. It is clear that that much money results in inequality that prevents some people from participating in the races from the very beginning.

Of course, in both Canada and Quebec, fundraising efforts do have to be significant. Everyone in this House knows that and participates in it. Still, the amount of money each of us can use for our election campaigns is within reach, even for individuals who do not have a personal fortune at their disposal or a network of acquaintances to secure the loans or donations they need to launch a campaign. For example, the value of some contributions made to both the Conservative and Liberal leadership races, which took place before Bill C-2 was passed, is still unknown.

It is clear to us that candidates should not be allowed to use loans to sidestep the caps that put an end to corporate backing and limit individual contributions.

The bill also solves another problem with the Federal Accountability Act, Bill C-2, about which I spoke earlier. When Bill C-2 was being studied—and this was denounced by all opposition parties—the Conservative government was much more interested in quickly passing the bill in order to inform citizens that it had fulfilled its first promise. Unfortunately, this haste resulted in a certain number of deficiencies. I am referring to loans to political entities. The bill fell somewhat short in terms of the ethics promised. We really did have to revisit the shortcomings of Bill C-2. I remind the House that, at the time, the opposition parties, the media, the political observers and organizations such as Democracy Watch pointed out the problem but the government refused to take action.

Once again, as is often the case in this Parliament, each party had to study the advantages and the disadvantages of the deficiencies resulting from the Conservatives' haste. We supported the bill because we were generally in favour of the underlying principle.

Bill C-29 also solves the problem of loans—it is at the heart of the bill—whereby the limits for personal political contributions could be circumvented. Several ethical difficulties were not addressed by Bill C-2. I am thinking, for instance, of poor protection for whistleblowers and the failure to reform the Access to Information Act.

Bill C-29 incorporates the only change proposed by the Bloc Québécois when Bill C-54 was studied in committee. This amendment ensured that the political party would not be responsible for the debts of candidates. The government wants to change that. We do not really understand the government's intentions. It wants to force a political party to guarantee, without prior knowledge, the debts of a candidate who, without making any effort to raise funds, decides to borrow from a bank the maximum amount allowed under the Canada Elections Act.

We therefore proposed an amendment, with which the government seemed to agree, or at least the opposition parties, the Liberals and the NDP, did. Now the government is questioning our amendment. Therefore, we will vote against this government motion.

It is rather irrational and illogical that a political party would be responsible for debts incurred by its candidates without the party knowing. We think the Bloc's amendment should be upheld so that the bill makes sense. I hope the two other opposition parties will still be in favour of it, as they were when Bill C-54 was being examined in committee.

The Bloc Québécois is almost entirely financed by individuals. An candidate could borrow $50,000 from the bank to run his election campaign. If he did not repay the loan, the bank could go after the political party. I think allowing this would be almost immoral. It means that every citizen who donates $5 to our party would also have to support this candidate who might have gotten into debt irresponsibly.

I think that even though we agree with the spirit of the bill and will vote in favour of it, the government should rethink its decision to remove the amendment proposed by the Bloc and adopted by the committee. It should go back to something that makes much more sense and that would be more respectful towards the thousands of small donors who are the financing backbone of the Bloc Québécois, and I imagine this is the case with the other parties.

I will not go on any longer. That was my basic message. We will have to hope that the government comes to its senses and accepts the bill with the amendment proposed by the Bloc and adopted in committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:39 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed 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.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-29.

Under the wavering light of this corner of the House, I hope my comments are clear and constant in suggesting that the bill, as it came through committee, was the proper bill. What the government is trying to do now is ignore the good democratic conditions and precedents of good committee work.

The bill in review aims to establish a system of improved accountability. It certainly did that as it came out of committee. Its key elements include creating a uniform and transparent reporting regime for all loans to political entities, including mandatory disclosure of terms and the identity of all lenders and loan guarantors.

That much makes a lot of sense. It would also ensure that total loans, loan guarantees and contributions by individuals could not exceed the annual contribution limit for individuals established in the Canada Elections Act.

It would also allow only financial institutions and political entities the capacity to make loans beyond the annual contribution limit for individuals and only at commercial or market rates of interest.

Tightening the rules for the treatment of unpaid loans to ensure candidates cannot walk away from unpaid loans was also an aim of this bill as it came back from committee. It would ultimately, as in its original sense, hold riding associations responsible for unpaid loans taken out by candidates. This is one of the cruxes of the problem, and I will get to the democratic deficit and the lack of participation that we have by good candidates in the electoral process if the government's designs are to be carried through.

The bill, by way of history, was first presented to the House during the first session of this Parliament as Bill C-54 and reintroduced in November of the past year with essentially the same content as Bill C-54.

The bill was very seriously examined during meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The members worked very hard and came to agree upon different elements. There was a great deal, I say in a spirit of non-partisanship, of unanimity with respect to some of the time limit terms and some of the technical aspects. It was thought, certainly by opposition members, that there was a good deal of consensus and agreement on a few other outstanding matters that were embodied in amendments to the bill.

On this side we thought the bill as amended, as it comes back from committee, is something that we, in the great traditions of the Liberal Party, in the great traditions of democratic reform and keeping the balance that allows people to participate in the democratic process, could support.

At those committee meetings, improvements were made, not the least of which, as a significant improvement, was now to have unpaid amounts of a loan to be considered contributions after three years from the date the loan was made. The original proposal was 18 months.

Now the government House leader, the minister responsible for undemocratic reform, is presenting motions that will completely disregard the other amendments that were passed at committee.

Government Motion No. 1 would delete the Liberal amendment to allow for annual contributions to a leadership candidate. Under this amendment, for example, person A would be allowed to donate $1,000, or $1,100 as the case may be, to leadership candidate B in each calendar year until leadership candidate B paid his or her campaign debt and formally and finally closed his or her leadership campaign.

Government Motion No. 2 would make it necessary for loans to be repaid annually rather than at the point when the loan becomes due. This effectively would prevent candidates from taking extended repayment loans. It acts as a foreclosure on the normal commercial manner in which loans are undertaken and paid back. It says that the way the market works with respect to loaning a person money to fund a campaign shall not be respected. It makes no sense to set up an artificial limit on repayment when the market will deal with that issue.

After all, the movement is from a loan from a friend to a loan from a commercial lender at a commercial rate. I do not know if there was enough evidence from the banking community on this but it would seem to me that the banks are not in the business of giving loans that are high risk. They are not in the business of giving loans to people who cannot repay them.

Why is it that Parliament shall say to the bankers of this country that they do not know how to underwrite risk and that Parliament will make it shorter in duration for the banks and different than the market conditions. It is clearly against the forces of the market, which I thought the party on the other side favoured, and it is clearly undemocratic because it will put a chill on candidates presenting themselves for election.

Considering the fact that elections are not something that somebody can plan for, I think we are living that right now, but often, in the normal course of events, we can plan when we want to buy a house, a car, start a family or put our kids through college, as the case may be. Those are events we can plan and save for and, from time to time, we can make loans from commercial lenders at commercial rates. However, it is very difficult for someone who is not in the House right now and who wants to stand as a candidate to predict when he or she may need to get a loan for a campaign or, as the case may be, a leadership race.

Because the election may be called at any time, January, April or October, it is unreasonable for someone to be asked to pay off a loan before the time limit established by the loan contract itself. We on this side stand for the principles of the market. The free market shall dictate when a loan is given and how it is prepaid. Why is the government interloping and saying to the free market, the lenders in this country, that the government knows best?

Here we see the Conservative government is pushing hard on its perception and not its reality of accountability.

The Accountability Act, Bill C-2, which was presented and passed, was really the window dressing for the government's new regime and for its patina, if one likes, of sincerity. I say patina because it is a very thin layer that can be pierced very easily and beneath the patina we can see the substance. Without proper regulations backing up Bill C-2, the Accountability Act, it is a very hollow instrument. It does not have any of the reality backing up the rhetoric with which it was introduced.

It would be an absolute hindrance, in terms of accountability, for us to say that these government amendments help the democratic process. It would be an absolute hindrance for anyone presenting themselves to have to focus on repaying the loan by the end of the fiscal year if that is not the date that was agreed upon by the lender.

Moving to government Motion No. 3, it would delete the Bloc Québécois amendment that would remove liability from registered political parties for loans taken out by candidates.

We can imagine that we are 308 members in the House, not all filled at the time, but all of us have different constituencies and all of us have been successful in getting here, some by a wide margin and some by a very large margin.

If one is contesting a riding that one does not hold, the spectre of the political association being responsible for one's debt, if one is unsuccessful, is again very undemocratic because it would pit the association against the candidate. In a riding where it is impossible to win, or does not look very likely that one could win, we can see very clearly that the bill and the government Motion No. 3 puts a chill on democratic involvement and is in fact very undemocratic. One would wonder why it is included.

Why would the Conservative government, which does not hold all the seats in Parliament and, in fact, will never hold many of the seats in Parliament, wants to put a chill on its own candidates in pitting their Conservative associations against their candidates? One wonders why because it does not do anything to help the participation of new candidates in ridings.

In short, we are not in support of these amendments that the government has reintroduced at report stage. We think t the committee worked very well and that its wishes and its motions should be respected.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to this bill.

I listened to my colleague with interest. I am myself a little surprised by the position of the government, which just reversed an amendment passed in committee to the effect that when someone makes a contribution to a leadership campaign, now, a total of $1,000 is allowed for all the candidates of a party leadership race. The amendment adds “during any calendar year”. It seemed reasonable to us for this amendment, put forward by the Liberals and passed in committee, to be accepted.

It is somewhat difficult to understand why the government insists on returning to the initial proposal in this case and, even more so, on Motion No. 3. I have a very hard time understanding how a government, a political party, can propose something that allows the members of a political party to shirk their responsibilities.

How can a government propose that a candidate be allowed to spend or borrow as much as he likes from a bank and that, afterwards, the political party should be responsible for the candidate? The member talked about this in his speech and I would like him to explain his position on this. Indeed, on both of these motions, I think it is very important that this House go back to what was passed in committee, which would seem wiser to me, democratically speaking.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for the warm welcome he gave me this summer in Grosse-Île, Quebec.

In response to his question, I can tell him that on this side of the House, we respect the committee's work. We believe that the committees work long and hard on the issues that are before them.

The key issue that the Bloc and the Liberal Party agree on is Motion No. 3. It does not make a lot of sense to make the local association responsible for a candidate's debts. The Bloc and the Liberals agree on this. Why are all the parties not in agreement on this? It makes far more sense for the association and the candidate to have separate obligations.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to tell you how pleased I am to be taking part in the debate on Bill C-29.

When you are a member of Parliament, there is not much that is more important than the quality of democratic life.

The members of the Bloc Québécois, who are all Quebeckers, because we field candidates only in Quebec, are obviously thinking of the legacy of René Lévesque. I am certain that the mention of his name is extremely inspiring to all the members, because René Lévesque made a huge contribution to cleaning up election practices by putting an end to secret funding. The older among us, including my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, will remember that the 1976 Parti Québécois leadership campaign centred around this issue. There was one slogan that went: “For a clean, clean, clean fund”.

Today, it seems funny to refer to that time, because practices in Quebec have changed so much, in a non-partisan way. No one in the National Assembly of Quebec would want to go back to a system where corporations and individuals could make unreported contributions.

Still, the idea of establishing limits is quite new in our federal legislation. There has been a federal Elections Act for a very long time, but it did not have any control over contributions until the final years of the Chrétien government. We have to acknowledge in a non-partisan way that that was an interesting way to ensure democracy.

One might ask why, in a democracy, we have to know the rules of the game and limit contributions to a political party to $1,100 per individual, for example. This needs to be done because we would not want to live in a democracy where members of Parliament become spokespersons for lobby groups, as in the United States. I remember meeting a U.S. senator. It takes millions and millions of dollars to get elected in the United States. Because candidates receive contributions, they are required to become declared lobbyists for a specific lobby group.

The beauty of our electoral system, which is not perfect and could use some amendments, is that someone like me, the son of a labourer with no personal wealth, got elected last time by spending $25,000. For the most part, my contributions came from public fundraising. We can get elected without having any ties whatsoever to lobby groups. I am not saying that those groups cannot make contributions to have their point of view represented. However, it is possible to get elected in a political system without any ties to lobby groups. That is the best guarantee the public has. When we rise in the House to take a position on an issue, we do so without any ulterior motive and only with the interests of our constituents in mind. The more responsibility we have and the closer we get to the top, the more important it is for these examples of integrity to be absolutely respected.

That is why the Bloc Québécois has repeatedly called on the present Prime Minister to disclose all the sources of funding for his Canadian Alliance leadership campaign in 2002. This would be a sign of democratic respect that we recognize and that demonstrates transparency. As the Gomery report put it, we believe it would be a sign of democracy, transparency and sound responsibility to know who financed the present Prime Minister in his leadership bid in 2002.

The bill that is before us, and that the Bloc Québécois supports, is a bill that goes farther still.

Jean Chrétien introduced one bill, and after that there was Bill C-2 which went a little farther. I would note, as an aside, that it was a source of some disappointment. We would have hoped that the Access to Information Act would be modernized. After all, we have been talking about that for two decades.

We are well aware that journalists, and some members of the public, are concerned about the way this government is restricting the dissemination of information. We are well aware that people expect the Access to Information Act to be modernized. The Liberals did not do it and the Conservatives are dragging their feet on it, but it would be a good thing if this were done very quickly.

Even though the Access to Information Act has not been modernized, Bill C-2 still put transparency mechanisms in place that the Bloc Québécois supported at the time. I am thinking, for example, of whistleblowing in the public service and the budget oversight mechanisms under the responsibility of the Library of Parliament. So it seemed to us to be moving in the right direction.

Today we are going farther. We are calling for an end to a practice that can also generate controversy, that can also be ambiguous and that can also be questionable in terms of transparency. We want to prevent party leaders and people who have responsibilities and who want to be elected in political parties from being able to circumvent the rules and get access to funding beyond what is permitted or otherwise than through public funding, by accepting personal loans.

Today's bill will, first, limit the personal loans that can be taken out to the extremely precise figure of $1,100, the same as for personal contributions. Obviously there is a disclosure mechanism and mandatory registration. More importantly, repayment will be monitored. If I understand correctly, if a personal loan taken out by an elected member is not repaid within 18 months, it will have to be considered to be a contribution to the party, and an entire process will be set in motion.

It seems that the government has begun by imitating what was done in Quebec, finally putting an end to funding by corporations, unions and businesses, and accepting contributions from individuals only. The cap has been set at $1,100 to minimize the potential for influence peddling. Today, we are going even further by ensuring that personal loans—access to funding—will not be possible.

I hasten to add that this mechanism is a good one for purposes of transparency. It is good because it will allow us to become elected representatives who owe nothing to lobby groups. But this reform would not have been viable without public funding for political parties. Democracy does indeed have a price.

If we want people to get involved in public life, we have to talk about balancing work and family. Some members of my party have studied this issue. We want women to hold public office, but we know that they do not have equal opportunity. Even though there have been significant changes, women often have responsibilities that men have not fully taken on. Truly equal opportunity demands public funding so that political parties can benefit from a kind of war chest provided by public coffers as a starting point.

We are always on the lookout for improvements and concerned about cleaning up electoral practices. I think that the bill before us would contribute to that goal.

Mr. Speaker, given the frank camaraderie that has characterized our work over the past few days, and given that I have worked so hard on my speech, would you be so kind as to find out whether there is consent for me to go on for another 10 minutes?

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for Hochelaga to continue his speech for another 10 minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to our hon. colleague's speech and the thoughts he shared with us. The thing that worries me the most is accessibility for candidates.

I wonder whether this legislation encourages—and he mentioned this—women, minorities or people who belong to a political party that does not have much money. What I am hearing is not an argument that opens the door to other people or to many people. It is an argument whereby a party with a lot of money can close the door to other parties.

I would like my colleague to comment on what I heard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right to say we should think about ensuring that those who want to get involved in public life can do so even if they may be at a disadvantage.

One of the ways to remedy this is to make political parties publicly funded. When political parties are publicly funded—and the hon. member knows it is $1.75 per elector—that means that all recognized political parties receive annual, statutory public funding pro-rated to the number of votes obtained in the last election. It is estimated that if a party receives public funding, it will ask for less money from those who want to run under its banner. Accordingly, this could help people who might be discouraged from doing so.

Let us talk about women. It is true that certain roles are still assumed more by women and less so by men and that political parties have the responsibility to ensure that no one is discouraged from seeking office just because a woman may have certain responsibilities.

Some women are saying political party conventions can be a deterrent. They think there is an adversarial aspect to political parties and this can discourage them.

It is up to us to make politics more harmonious and that, more and more, is what the Bloc Québécois is striving to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Hochelaga on his speech.

We all know that we have reached the report stage, a time when we finally receive the amendments proposed in committee and we decide whether or not to accept them. In rare cases, as it is at this time, the government is trying to bring us back to an earlier position, prior to what was originally planned. Two clauses are involved, and I will focus on one of them in particular, the one by which the government would like to make each political party responsible for all the personal loans of a candidate.

I have a hard time understanding why the government wants to put forward such a practice, given that this will allow candidates to shirk their responsibilities, add to the responsibility of the parties and could even cause fewer serious candidates to be interested.

Does the hon. member for Hochelaga believe that it is important to reject this government amendment and return to the amendment passed, the one proposed by the Bloc Québécois in committee?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. If I understand correctly, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup is worried. First of all, it is very possible that a candidate who is elected to Parliament could incur a debt that his or her party does not know about and, in terms of contract law, he or she is solely responsible.

In my opinion, holding a party responsible for a commitment that might have been made without the party's knowledge, and that might not even concern the party, makes absolutely no sense. Thus, the member is quite right to say that we should return to the amendment presented by the Bloc Québécois in committee. I believe the amendment was supported by other political parties in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this bill at report stage. First of all, for the benefit of the people listening to us, I want to say again what can be done at report stage.

First, a vote is held at second reading on the principle of the bill. Then it is considered in committee to improve it and correct it as much as possible. The committee reports to the House, which considers the proposed amendments. The government is entitled at this stage to propose new amendments, as are the other parties.

In the current case, the government wants to reverse what the committee and Parliament have done in regard to two things. First, the committee adopted an amendment, moved by the Liberals, specifying the maximum possible contribution to a leadership race. The current bill reads therefore as follows:

(c) $1,000 in total... to the leadership contestants in a particular leadership contest

We added “in any calendar year” to that. The entire bill is based on the fact that contributions are always calculated over a calendar year, and so it seemed appropriate to us to adopt this amendment. The government now wants to return to the original wording in the act, which seems unclear to us. The House should concur instead in the amendment suggested by the committee. The discussions in committee are held in greater depth. We studied the situation in considerable detail and arrived at a more acceptable wording than the one presented now.

The second government amendment concerns the fact that a loan becomes a contribution when it has not been paid back after three years. It was actually the opposition parties that managed to push the timeframe for the conversion of a loan into a contribution back from 18 months to three years. In light of this major change, the modifications that the government is proposing in Motion No. 2 seem minor to us and we can accept them. It suggests returning to the original proposal that the three-year time period should start after the selection date in the case of a nomination contestant, rather than on the selection day; after the end of the leadership contest in the case of a leadership contestant, rather than the voting day; and for a party, three years after the end of the fiscal year in which the loan was made, rather than the day the amount is due. The important thing in this clause is that the time period for the conversion of a loan into a contribution is pushed back from 18 months to 36 months. There is additional leeway, therefore, which is more realistic.

In its third proposal, the government is returning to the wording of the current act and wants to reject the amendment that the Bloc Québécois made in the previous session. The government wants to make parties responsible for all the debts contracted by their candidates.

Let us look at the reality and take an example. A political party nominates a candidate or chooses one at a convention. Before or after the election campaign, the candidate takes out a large personal loan, without notifying the party, to cover election expenses. The government would have the party be liable to the bank for that loan.

This shows no sense of responsibility. I am very surprised that the government is defending such a position, and I am still trying to understand how this would benefit the party or the candidate. Clearly, an irresponsible candidate could decide to borrow a lot of money because the party would have to pay it back. In the long run, this would seriously weaken the parties' financial position and would not help democracy.

Consequently, with regard to this motion, we believe it is important to revert to the Bloc Québécois amendment. It was drafted and adopted in the spirit of realism and cooperation, so that candidates would have a real sense of responsibility and be fully aware of what they are getting into. Running for office is an important step to take, and candidates must be aware of what that involves. I have taken part in five elections and been re-elected every time. Every time, you have to look at your financial situation and specific needs. If such a measure had been in place for the past 15 years, things would have been different, not for me personally, but for everyone.

Since my time is up, I will conclude by saying that I hope the House has listened to our arguments.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have five minutes after question period to finish his speech.

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

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

When this bill was being debated, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup had the floor. He has five minutes remaining for his remarks.

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

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

Mr. Speaker, before question period I started to explain our position on the various amendments the government made at report stage. It is quite amazing that the government has decided to reverse what was decided in committee. This is not necessarily related to the point of order that was just raised, but it is still in the same spirit.

These are in fact very practical matters. We were talking, for example, about an amendment adopted by the committee providing that someone could contribute $1,000 in total to the leadership contestants in a particular leadership contest. The committee wanted to add “in any calendar year” so that the same logic that applies to funding under the Canada Elections Act would apply to leadership contests.

The amendment seems to us to be simple, clear, precise and desirable, but the government has decided to go against the amendment adopted in committee. We hope that this House will go back to the position adopted by the committee, which represented a majority of the House. It is important that the Canada Elections Act be organized in a logical way. That concept is not reflected in this amendment, however.

Another motion by the government is even more unacceptable. In an election, if a party’s candidate incurs personal expenses and takes out loans, the party will automatically be responsible for those loans, even though it was not a party to the loan. I believe that this encourages irresponsibility.

I have been a candidate and I have won five elections. Early in the campaign there is money to get it started, but you need additional money because a candidate has additional expenses. If we adopted the position taken by the government it would mean that someone could decide of his or her own accord to borrow $10,000 or $15,000, and the bank would lend the person the money because the party would be guaranteeing it, without necessarily knowing about it. That makes no sense.

We absolutely have to go back to the Bloc Québécois proposal adopted in committee, which is meant to ensure that there is some logic to the scheme. When someone is a candidate in an election, he or she incurs expenses. Each person must be responsible for his or her own choices. If the party wishes to help out, it can do so within the rules in the law. However, it must not be surprised by the discovery that someone has borrowed $10,000 or $20,000 in his or her personal capacity. If we leave the provision as it stands in the government’s proposal, then that $10,000 or $20,000 would become the party’s responsibility. Things done by an individual would therefore sometimes have consequences for all elected members of that party. That is not an appropriate approach to take.

In terms of the bill, we will see whether those amendments are adopted. The purpose of all this is to have an Elections Act that demands transparency and that guarantees that when electors make their choice they have been fully informed and will respect the system in which they are participating.

The few technical elements that were discussed in relation to these amendments make things clear. There have been all sorts of leadership contests in the past. After those elections it is often impossible to get a clear idea of where the money came from. If someone gives $10,000 or $20,000 or $50,000, that may have a particular influence when the successful candidate is in a position of responsibility.

We have started to clarify these things and we have to keep going down that path. We have to adopt a legislative framework that is as precise and independent as possible. When citizens exercise their right to vote they must be aware that they are engaging in a very important democratic activity.

Given this situation, the Bloc Québécois hopes that the amendments in Motions No. 1 and 3 will be rejected. We think Motion No. 2, however, is acceptable. We hope that the House has listened to our suggestions.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his presentation. My question is simple. The Conservatives make things difficult, particularly when it comes to amending the Canada Elections Act. In fact, 63 of their own candidates have not yet been reimbursed for their expenses during the last election campaign. Now the Chief Electoral Officer is investigating their expense accounts because they may not have complied with the law. Given that they now want to amend the law, we have to ask: is that in their interest or not?

With respect to amendments Nos. 1 and 3, obviously we thought this was about limiting contributions to $1,000 per year, as for individuals. We thought that was a good idea, even when we were in the middle of a leadership race. Lastly, with respect to the problem of granting loans, current legislation provides that if the loan is not paid back within three years, it automatically becomes a contribution, a donation that exceeds the maximum limit under the Elections Act.

According to this bill, the party would be responsible for paying off that debt. Anyone who contracts a loan and does not pay it back within three years no longer runs the risk of breaking the law and being charged with contravening the Canada Elections Act, because the loan would become a party debt.

We have to wonder what the Conservatives are trying to accomplish. I think that they want to use the Canada Elections Act once again to justify election expenses that do not comply with the law.

What is my colleague's position on this issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, the example given by my colleague is very impressive. More than 60 Conservative candidates—63 or 67 candidates—have not yet been reimbursed for money they borrowed during the last election campaign because of a faulty interpretation of the law and the fact they made certain expenditures that were not accepted by Elections Canada.

As a result, Elections Canada is refusing to reimburse those amounts. That raises some questions because the amendments made by the government seek to maintain the fuzziness in the act that exists with regard to other factors. To some extent, they were caught with their hands in the till since the practice was not legal. They have been told that by Elections Canada and they are contesting it in court but the fact remains that those candidates have still not been reimbursed because they did not comply with the law as interpreted by Elections Canada.

In the same way, if we were to adopt the amendments proposed by the government, we could be repeating the same kind of fuzziness and thereby adding to the problem. It is somewhat irresponsible to tell us that now , according to the government's proposal, a party could not prevent a candidate from borrowing $60,000 from a bank. Yet, if a problem arose, the same party would have to assume the debt. In addition, we must also consider this plan to see whether it might not enable some funny business.

The past being our best predictor of the future, the ethics spokesperson of the Conservative Party is showing the same behaviour and the same attitude as we saw in the last election—and as we can read this morning in the newspapers. He does not deny that he could use the same system once again even though it has been denounced by Elections Canada.

It should be understood that we on this side will be very demanding. We want the federal government—the Conservative Party—to send out a clear notice that this type of behaviour will no longer be permitted; moreover, that they accept the arguments presented in the examination of the different amendments and will support the two amendments adopted by the committee. These amendments were supported by the majority of the parties and should be incorporated into the bill. That would provide for a clearer interpretation and would also allow the public to see that the electoral system is working well and operating transparently.

If the act were not so clear on the matter of reimbursement, the Conservatives might not be in trouble today. However, Elections Canada has done its job and concluded that for more than 60 candidates, the practice was not acceptable. These people have still not been reimbursed and we do not want to see the same situation over the same issue in the next election or over any other question in the act. That is why it is better to be clearer and to adopt the amendments proposed in committee by the members of different parties.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue the debate on the report stage amendments to Bill C-29.

The government has said that the bill would fill in gaps in existing legislation governing loans to political candidates or parties. However, I point out that the existing law requires full disclosure of these types of loans and has procedures in place governing repayment. However, the bill purports to tweak and ratchet up the degree of regulation involved with these loans.

From a distance, it looks like the Conservative government is trying to do everything it can to lob grenades, regulate and obstruct the way people run for public office federally. I am imputing rationale here, but it is as though the Conservatives are saying they have their financing mechanisms all in place and the rest us can go find our own way. They are going to regulate the field and make it tough for everybody, including arguably, themselves. That is the universe the way they see it. They will continue to regulate and regulate. Every time they see something they do not like, they will pass another law and will continue to pass laws until the thing gets so gummed up that hardly anybody will be able to move on the street. That is my impression of the bill.

I accept it is a tweak, a ratchet up to the existing set of rules. However, I want to try to take a wider angle view of what is going on as it relates to the right of Canadians to participate in the political process.

I think there is some gamesmanship involved. I do not think it is all idealistic attempts to make the universe right. In their efforts at trying to kneecap the other parties, or other people who do not organize their campaigns the way the Conservatives do, are they really in a way obstructing participation in the process? Are we only thinking about existing parties when we make these new rules? Have we forgot about the new parties that have not made it into the system yet?

If we were talking about banking or the mining sector, we would be looking at such issues as obstacles and barriers to entry to ensure competition. We would not clutter the roadway with all kinds of rules and barriers to obstruct new entrants into the mining or banking field. We like to see competition. In adopting these measures in the bill, we would really be regulating. I will give two examples of how I think it may be a problem.

These new rules create barriers to people, although that may have been unintended. I think the intention is to create barriers for all the other political parties that are on the street now and we may have forgot about the ones that are not there yet.

I have two examples on which I want to focus.

First, the bill says that candidates and parties can only borrow from financial institutions. That would be a pretty significant law. In order to borrow from a financial institution, one has to have a credit rating. Does a poor candidate have a better credit rating than a rich candidate? I will leave that question unanswered, but I think the answer is kind of obvious. A poor candidate would not have as good a credit rating. Therefore, with the imposition of the mandatory financing mechanism with the banks and therefore the imputed need for a credit rating, are we imposing a barrier to poor candidates? I think we are. A poor candidate might be able to borrow from a brother-in-law, but might not be able to float a decent loan from the bank for his or her political campaign as he or she goes forward.

All of the existing incumbents in the House have been elected at least once. Most of us know how to finance a campaign or to raise money for it. We all have to do it. It is a very legitimate part of being involved in politics, but I think buried in this section is an adverse effect discrimination. Somebody out there will notice it and someday even the courts may notice it.

I am thinking of women who sometimes have less money and poorer people, who by definition have less money and resources, to participate in politics and sometimes may need a loan to get them over the hump.

Second, if we can only borrow from the banks and financial institutions, then the banks become an integral monopoly source of funding or borrowing for financial campaigns. I wonder how a bank makes a decision about its lending policies, about whether it will only lend to one party or one candidate. If it lends to one, does it have to lend to all? How will the banks handle this imposition of being the sole source for lending to political campaigns? If I were the banks, I would be kind of unhappy about it, because it is forcing banks to make decisions that may be seen to be political.

I mentioned earlier the problem of credit ratings for the poor candidates, the less pecunious candidates, but the banks also have a decision to make between political parties. They may decide to lend $10,000 to one party and $25,000 to the other party or cap everybody at $10,000. Maybe they will decide not lend anybody anything in a political campaign because it is too mucky and too political. They might leave it up to Parliament to figure out how it wants to finance campaigns, but they do not want people going to them. If we do not want candidates to borrow from the brother-in-law or from the friend, too bad.

The banks might not be too happy with this. I do not know for sure, but there may be some push-back there. If a person needs a loan and he or she has to go to a bank and the bank tells that person it does not lend to political candidates or parties, what have we done? We have created a barrier to participation and entry.

The amendments put forward by the government purport to roll back amendments that were put into the bill by the members of the committee. They were good amendments and I would like to keep them there. Therefore, I oppose the government's move to roll them back.

One amendment has to do with the amortization of loans of leadership candidates. Another one has to do with repeat loans during a calendar year, which looks pretty reasonable to me. The other has to do with the deletion of the automatic liability of a political party, as mentioned by the previous speaker, if one of its candidates defaults on repayment of a loan. That is just a dumb mechanism and it should not be there. However, it does relate to my earlier comments about banks and financial institutions. Maybe they would not mind having that automatic liability of the party being there, but I do not think it is a good way to manage the financing.

I therefore oppose the government motions to reinstate provisions of the bill.

For reasons I have stated, there may be some constitutional vulnerability related to the charter in these sections. We will not know until the appropriate case comes along. However, when that case does come along, I hope it is somebody who maybe did not have a lot of money, wanted to borrow money but was unable to do that. I hope the person can show that this relatively dumb, holier than thou government regulation of this part of the political process is seen to be an obstacle to political participation.

I hope my friends in the Conservative Party will see that perhaps they are taking too myopic a view of Canada. They are trying to regulate everything from their view inside their political party, but Canada is really much more diverse and demands a little more freedom than they are willing to accord in terms of the financing of campaigns and participation in the process.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the House would be particularly intrigued and interested in the member's response to the point he made with respect to the role banking institutions would play within the regime entrenched in the bill, particularly as it relates to the whole notion of the pecunious capacity of individuals to go to a bank and say that they want to borrow X amount of dollars toward a campaign.

What would the member's opinion be on to why the government is so concerned with the mechanism as opposed to a candidate being able to go to a number of people, as long as the reporting mechanisms were clear, transparent, reported to the Chief Electoral Officer and the whole issue with bankruptcy and unpaid loans was made transparently clear as to how the loan must be repaid and so on? Why is it so important for the banking institution? Is there something inherent in the banking institutions act that is a protector for the public purse, the public cause?

Is there not another way that would encourage democracy, encourage people to come forward? If they could avail themselves of the confidence of several Canadians to support them, is it not the process of reporting that is more important than the actual mechanism that they have to go to a bank?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has focused correctly on two of the problems with the bill and the amendments.

The Conservative government seems to have made two incorrect assumptions. One is that the rest of the world should be financing their campaigns the way the Conservatives have done it. They either do it their way or the highway.

The second is banks are just like public utilities. The banks are there and even though Conservatives probably will not have to borrow money, to heck with the rest of us. We can go to a bank and get a loan.

However, there are problems in doing that. The whole object of all the election financing legislation was to ensure there were no huge special interests vying for or currying favour in the electoral process. It was also to ensure there was transparency throughout so we could accomplish those objectives. If there were a special interest participating in some extra special way, it would be visible.

Those objectives were accomplished by the earlier legislation. We may quibble with caps, maximum amounts, minimum amounts and things like that, but the original legislation accomplished those results.

The new legislation that deal with loans goes too far and makes to incorrect assumptions. I would have been very comfortable if the parties, and I know there were discussions among the parties, had opposed it. I will vote with my party of on this one. However, I see the problem. They have gone too far.

The good news is we might have gone so far that it will not survive in the case of some candidates. Perhaps a single mother in Rimouski needs a bank loan and suddenly realizes she cannot get it. Then some of her friends tell her to deal with it in court because the legislation is an obstacle to her carrying on a campaign and getting through it.

I am not saying the bank has to pay for the whole campaign. The bank is just a bridge loan. The loan helps candidates get through the campaign period and then they pay the it back with their electoral contributions and their fund raising. That is my view.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although I am usually quite happy to rise in this House to debate various bills dealing with social problems, I find it difficult to debate this bill because, for me, anything that has to do with money and math is esoteric. It is all Greek to me. It is a language that I do not understand at all. In that regard, the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women could corroborate. I have to work very hard to understand anything concerning money.

What I do understand, however, is that the government was too anxious to put through Bill C-2 and that the bill has several shortcomings. That does not surprise me, but what I do find surprising is that the government now wants to address some of those shortcomings. Indeed, over the past two years, none of the objectives of Bill C-2 has been met in its original form. The purpose of the bill was to guarantee a responsible, transparent government that would never commit any wrongdoings as serious as those we had seen in the past. We now see that that is not the case and we must quickly put forward another bill to correct the shortcomings. Let us hope that Bill C-29 will correct these deficiencies, not only in words or in the text of the legislation, but also in action.

Contrary to what my colleague just said, if a young woman from Rimouski went to a bank to get a loan so that she could run in a federal election, I do not think she would have the problems he was describing. In Quebec, the caisses populaires have a social duty and must lend 60% of the amount that a person is entitled to receive from the Chief Electoral Officer for federal elections. So we have something here that is probably already better than what exists in the ROC, the rest of Canada. We have created financial institutions for ourselves in Quebec and passed laws that prevent the kind of abuses they are trying to prevent today with Bill C-29.

At the same time, though, as they try to prevent abuses, they are handicapping the political parties a bit by removing their ability to decide—along with the— whether he or she can borrow money. According to the bill, the parties would be responsible for the money their candidates borrowed. That is totally absurd. I wonder whether the party of which I am a proud member would have been able to meet my needs when I decided to enter politics. I made my own decisions about how much money I needed, an amount that was very personal. It is not up to the parties to foot the bill for people who decide to run for them in elections.

A candidate is chosen and talks with his party. He determines his strategy together and in collaboration with his party, but ultimately, it is the candidate who decides how much he wants to spend on his election campaign. If the political party were made responsible for the money that a candidate spends, we would be opening the door to major abuses.

It is the same as if I decided to buy a new house and told the bank it could have confidence in me because the Speaker of the House of Commons likes it and supports my getting a loan. Since you are a solid citizen, the bank would give me the money. That would be a bit ridiculous.

Once again, we see the party in power, the Conservatives, trying to put more restrictive rules in place when they do not follow their own rules. It is rather paradoxical. When we adopt rules, we should start by following them ourselves before insisting that other people should follow them or thinking that a new rule should be invented to prevent one party or another from making progress.

That is the impression given by this bill.

Bill C-54, which was introduced in the last session, was very similar to this bill. It was examined in committee and debated on several occasions. In fact, an amendment from the Bloc Québécois had been incorporated into the bill. As a result, it was a better bill that provided a great deal more latitude to political parties, to individuals and to companies. We know that we must act responsibly.

Now, the government has tabled other amendments, which are unacceptable, to prevent us from acting in a way that any political party should have to right to act.

In Quebec, we have had regulations governing political funding for more than 30 years. René Lévesque was very conscious of the difficulties and temptations that political parties, individuals and legislature members must deal with. Some members or ministers think they have a great deal more power because their party is in office. That is not how we are supposed to think. We are supposed to take our responsibilities very seriously. Unfortunately, too many people do not do that.

Therefore, we have created a very strict framework that requires parties, members of the legislature and individuals to follow the rules. Those rules have been followed for more than 30 years and that works very well in Quebec, contrary to what some government members here have said. If there is electoral fraud in Quebec it does not happen often. When there is fraud it is discovered immediately, and not two, three or four years later, because we have provided the tools to do that.

The government seems to forget that in the past two years it introduced Bill C-2 to deal with some of the difficulties that parliamentarians might encounter. But they have not even respected the spirit of Bill C-2.

We have heard of influence-peddling in recent weeks. We have also seen appointments that are clearly favouritism. In the past few weeks, we have seen contracts awarded to third parties in ways that do not comply with the regulations. Those contracts were for just under $25,000, which made it possible to award more contracts, to more people, without following the usual procedures.

In my opinion, when we create legislation it is because we recognize that we have a responsibility toward our fellow citizens. If we only do it to look good, would it not be better to think seriously before trying to put through a bill? Would it not be better, as a political body—I am speaking of the government—to look deeply into its conscience to ensure that Bill C-2 is respected?

They tell us all day long that they brought forward Bill C-2, but for the past two years that bill has been laughed at and ignored by the government in power. For two years they have twisted that bill in all kinds of ways. Now, they want to make amendments to Bill C-29 in order to make life difficult for the political parties that are not in power. It is ridiculous.

Part of this bill is certainly important. We will vote in favour of that important part; but the majority of the amendments that have been added are not acceptable to us because they simply do not make sense. We want nothing to do with those.

We do not want those.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on her very eloquent presentation. She is a person who is very keenly involved in women's issues.

According to the current law, all loans, including the amount of every loan, the name of every lender and every guarantor, must be publicly disclosed. The only person who still has not followed this law is the Prime Minister, who has not declared who his donors were in 2002.

As the government is trying to ensure that everyone goes to a bank for a loan, we would not be able to get women candidates. Women candidates would now be restricted. Previously they could get money from their friends and family, but now the government wants candidates to go to a bank, and the bank will need a guarantor. That could be the person's house or first born, et cetera, because banks are very particular.

What does the hon. member think is the reason for the government wanting to be so regressive? Does it not want women to participate? Or is it that the Conservatives' coffers are full and they fund their own candidates, and they are trying to somehow bypass something? We saw one of their own members take a loan from his own company. Is that what it is?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague and I can come up with a whole host of reasons why the Conservative Party would want this. It is true that the Prime Minister did not declare all the contributions he received for his leadership race. He declared a few contributions over $1,000, but not all of them. It is also true that there are very few women in the Conservative Party. It is not important for them to give women the opportunity to run for politics. The fewer there are, the less they are challenged and the fewer problems they have within their own party. That is clear. Women who do get elected are often there as tokens. It is unfortunate.

My colleague is right to say that every time a party tries to limit people from seeking election, there is something behind that. In the United States, the more conservative parties that denounce pornography, pedophilia, gays and abortion, are most often the parties where we find people accused of pedophilia and other offences. It does not surprise me in the least that the current government is trying to implement changes to ensure that as few people as possible take part in the democratic process.

However, the Conservatives are taking advantage of the money in their coffers to do things before the election campaign and while they are still in power. We saw the unelected Minister Fortier campaigning with signs on the bus and spending thousands of dollars on ad campaigns. He has offices in a riding where he was not even elected. He is a minister who was appointed. This is something else the Prime Minister swore he would never do. Those are the people we end up with. It is easy for them because they have thousands of dollars.

Where did they get this money? They did not get it for nothing, nor did they get it for their good looks. They did not get it because the Conservative Party suddenly discovered a social mission. They got it because the people who gave them money knew they would do something in return. That is wrong.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to address the report stage amendments to the bill that would amend the Canada Elections Act regarding accountability with respect to loans.

As my hon. colleagues have already talked about, this is a moot point because it is very explicit under the law that is currently in place. Details of loans, including the amount of every loan, the name of every lender and every guarantee must already be publicized and disclosed.

What we want to know is the purpose of these changes or regression that the Conservatives want. May I say from the outset that it is in the interest of all Canadians to ensure that the federal government is accountable because we were sent here by the people to be accountable.

I am an accountant by trade. I was elected by the people of Don Valley East as their federal representative because they wanted someone deeply concerned about transparency and accountability. We are wondering about the need of some aspects in the proposed legislation. The committee looked at it and had made recommendations. Some things are very important that we need the committee's democratic process to run with.

When we look at some of the initiatives that were launched by the previous Liberal governments in 1993 and 2006, they were initiatives that made government more accountable and the whole process more transparent. We introduced the office of the Ethics Commissioner. The Ethics Commissioner is an important element that we need because we have to refer matters to him. We fostered the development to make the ethics officer independent from the Prime Minister's Office, which is important because the ethics officer is accountable to Parliament.

It was the Liberal government that also established a separate Senate ethics commissioner and it was the Liberal government that first established clear guidelines for public office holders. Furthermore, it was the Liberal government that restored the comptroller general function at each department and subsequently instituted an internal audit department. Being a person who comes from that environment, I think it is very important that we instituted those checks and balances.

What does the bill attempt to do? The bill attempts to build on the changes that were proposed by the committee. They attempt to build on the reforms that were originally introduced by the Liberal government, for example, electoral reform.

It was under the Liberal government that we introduced Bill C-24, which was a dramatic reform of political financing in Canadian history and it passed the strictest limits on the amounts of money that private companies and trade unions could contribute to a party or a candidate. Through the same bill, it was the Liberal government that first introduced public funding for political parties, an innovation that made political parties far less reliant on corporate or union financing.

Those types of transparencies have been introduced. The barriers that people had, the barriers to transparency were eliminated by bringing in those type of reforms.

We in the Liberal Party support the efforts to increase transparency and accountability in the electoral process and that is why the Liberal leadership candidates of the Liberal Party went beyond the requirements set out by Elections Canada in reporting loans to its campaigns.

In stark contrast, the Prime Minister still refuses to disclose the names of those who donated to his leadership campaign in 2002. How can the Prime Minister and his party sit there and talk about accountability when the Prime Minister himself thumbs his nose at accountability? How does his non-disclosure represent transparency? The Prime Minister has a litany of broken promises.

It is clear that the Prime Minister believed in an elected Senate. What is the first thing he does? He arrives in Ottawa and appoints his campaign manager to the Senate and makes him the Minister of Public Works. That is not transparency. That is deceitfulness and that is not the way transparency works. In fact, he makes a farce of transparency by thumbing his nose to Canadians and telling them to do what he says but then does the opposite of what he says.

Michael Fortier, the minister of the largest department in the federal government, is not accountable to this House. This is the House to which he should be accountable, but he is an unelected minister. Does the Prime Minister have two sets of accountability, one for his friends and himself and the other for the rest of Canadians?

We looked at this issue of loans. If the Conservative coffers are filled and they supply money to their own candidates, women, who will be the least able to go to the banks and get loans, will be the most marginalized. Is that what the Conservatives are looking for or are they looking to ensure that minorities do not come into government? What is their purpose? What is their hidden agenda?

When we look at the election platform of the Conservative government, at page 9 it states:

A Conservative government will:

Ensure that all Officers of Parliament are appointed through consultation with all parties in the House of Commons and...not just named by the Prime Minister.

What is the first thing the Prime Minister does? He turns around and arbitrarily appoints a loyal Reform Party member as head of the federal appointment process with absolutely no consultation with Parliament. That is not the way accountability and transparency works.

We have heard in this House numerous misdeeds that have been done by the Conservatives. We sit here and ask ourselves how anyone can even trust them. Canadians do not believe a word the Conservatives are saying.

It appears that the Prime Minister is standing up for his closest friends. He appoints unelected members as ministers, appoints his close friends and then basically thumbs his nose at every piece of legislation that deals with accountability and transparency. This is precisely the type of behaviour that fuels public mistrust of government institutions.

If the Prime Minister is concerned about accountability and transparency, when will he disclose who donated to his leadership campaign? Would this bill make him do that? We already have a bill that asks for it and he thumbs his nose at us. By changing the bill, what is he trying to? Is he trying to pretend that he has brought about some sort of transparency and accountability?

We have heard of ministers being mired in conflict of interest, in interference and in all sorts of farces. That is the type of accountability we do not need. We do not need a lesson in transparency and accountability from the government.

The Liberal Party is prepared to support a bill that was amended by the committee. This is how democratic systems work. We are living in a democracy, not an autocracy. We need to understand the reasons for the Conservatives being so gung-ho in trying to bring about regressive changes. Is it to their advantage? Do they want no minorities, no women? What is it that they want?

We will be placing this legislation under close scrutiny to salvage genuine reforms. We do not want these nonsensical reforms, this deceitful double-talk that has been coming from the Conservative benches. We want better accountability but it will be done through a democratic process at the committee level, not by bullying tactics.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech from my friend from Don Valley on this important legislation. I think we can, as usual, make our case for or against legislation without personal attacks or judging people's motives in the way that we just heard.

The member asked whether the Conservatives wanted any minorities or women to be members of Parliament. The first ever female cabinet minister was a Conservative. The first female prime minister was a Conservative. The first Chinese Canadian member of Parliament was a Conservative. After the next election in New Westminster—Coquitlam, the first Korean Canadian member of Parliament will be Conservative. We can leave that out of the debate and still make our arguments.

However, she did make two points that I want to respond to and invite her to respond to my response.

She said that we agreed that we would have appointments made after consultation with Parliament. She said that the head of the Public Appointments Commission, who we put forward, was a Reformer and that the person was appointed and should not have been because the person was a Reformer. I believe she was talking about Gwyn Morgan. Gwyn Morgan, who donated twice as much money to the Liberal Party as to the Conservative Party, is the example that she gave. Of course, the appointment of Gwyn Morgan was defeated at the government operations committee and, therefore, he was not appointed to the position for which the Prime Minister had suggested. We did in fact listen to Parliament, so that part of her speech does fall flat.

She did spend a long time criticizing the minister for the portfolio for which I am responsible, the Minister of Public Works. She said that it was unacceptable that we have a minister who is not elected in this House. The leader of the Liberal Party was appointed to cabinet while he was unelected. Was that inappropriate? Was Jean Chrétien wrong to appoint the current leader of the Liberal Party to cabinet without him first running in an election?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, women were able to participate because there were no Draconian measures. I think he missed my question to the previous member where I said that the current legislation demands that loans be publicly disclosed, including the amount of every loan and the name of every lender and guarantor. The only person who has not disclosed that is the Prime Minister.

In addition, the current legislation also states that loans cannot be used to avoid donation limits.

When loans were in place, processes were in place that women could access funding. He missed the point quite clearly that women have a problem accessing funding. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women has been looking at women's participation and found that they cannot access funding and, if they do access funding, it is to their detriment because the bank wants guarantors.

What is wrong with the current system that allows these women to get their loans from individuals, from family or from friends? That is the process that was available to allow women to participate. I am glad I was in the process to participate.

When the member makes statements, he should look at what has been done before. The rules were not regressive and, therefore, women could participate.

In terms of Michael Fortier, the bottom line is that he is an unelected member. The leader of the current opposition party was a member in the House. If the member gets his facts wrong, I am sorry but that is the problem with them. They keep getting their facts wrong and whatever they say they think is right. However, the facts speak for themselves.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member, I realize that she, quite clearly, does not understand the purpose of the bill and obviously does not understand the concept of accountability. She asked over and over what the purpose of the bill was. Obviously, as a Liberal, she does not understand because the purpose of the bill is to stop circumventing the law.

The law reads that $1,100 is supposed to be the limit, and certain people take advantage of that. I have some figures in front of me. I believe a gentleman by the name of Mr. Kennedy, who ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party, has loans of over $200,000. Another one is Mr. Rae who has $845,000 in loans.

I want to explain to the member that the reason for the law is so all people can get elected. Right now the only people who can get elected are people who know wealthy people who can donate to their campaign. I want to know why she has a problem with this $1,100 limit? Why does she not want all Canadians to be equal, not just Canadians who have wealthy friends who could be elected to high positions? What is her problem with equality for all people who want to get elected?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should read what he is talking about. It was Bill C-2 that restricted the $1,100. This is Bill C-54, which deals with loans. Perhaps he is going to be talking about the member in his own caucus who took $30,000 from his company. I think the member should figure out what he is talking about before asking questions.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in speaking to this bill in the House.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-29. The Bloc is in favour of a bill that would prevent people from bypassing campaign financing rules. Our position has not changed, unlike what the government is trying to do by introducing its three motions that are on the order paper.

Last session, this bill was called Bill C-54. I say that for the benefit of those listening and watching at home. The government simply introduced a new version containing the amendments made in committee, amendments that were adopted, by the way.

This bill is necessary to close some loopholes in the Federal Accountability Act, Bill C-2, which the government wanted to rush through. We believe that it is necessary to regulate loans in order to prevent financing limits from being circumvented. Contributions to political parties from individuals are limited to $1,100, and contributions from unions or businesses are no longer allowed. These contributions are close to zero. So, an individual can contribute up to $1,100 to a political party, and businesses and unions are not allowed to finance a political party. Examples were given in the May 9, 2007 Ottawa Citizen. This is one of the sources that reported on this problem. It provided examples of expenses and looked at whether or not they were permitted under the Federal Accountability Act.

The Liberal Party of Canada allowed candidates, including Bob Rae and the current Leader of the Opposition to take out loans of around $705,000 and $655,000, respectively. We also saw that creditors made loans of $25,000, $50,000, $100,000 or $150,000.

It was clear that the candidates for leadership of the Liberal Party had found a way to fund their campaigns without relying on grassroots funding. We want this ceiling. These contribution limits are the result of a battle the Bloc Québécois has fought since it has been here. These limits were set several years ago, and we will do everything in our power in this House to make sure no one circumvents the law. We will not support regulations that would amount to backsliding. We want grassroots funding and limits on individual contributions, as we have had in Quebec for 30 years.

The content of the bill is fairly simple. The bill would establish a uniform, transparent disclosure system for all loans to political entities, including mandatory disclosure of terms. People would therefore have the right to know the identity of all lenders and loan guarantors. The bill provides that only financial institutions, at a commercial interest rate, or political entities would be authorized to make loans of more than $1,100.

The rules that apply to unpaid loans would be tightened so that candidates could not shirk their obligations.

Riding associations—or the party itself, when there are no associations—would become liable for loans candidates did not repay.

We are currently examining a request by the government concerning how candidates' unpaid loans would be treated.

In its current form, the bill provides that loans that were not repaid after 18 months would be considered political contributions.

This brings me to the three motions on the order paper, and I will explain the position of the Bloc Québécois on each one. The three motions are amendments to the bill. We have problems with two of them. The third does not present a problem because it makes clarifications that are in line with the amendment tabled in committee.

The problem with the first motion is that the government wants to limit contributions to a given candidate to $1,000 for the entire leadership race. We would prefer that each $1,000 donation from an individual be made according to existing rules governing political contributions, that is, on the basis of a fiscal year. That way, if a leadership race were to take place over two fiscal years, a total of $2,000 could be donated. We are therefore against the government's amendment.

We think that the amendment proposed in committee is logical because the contribution limits in the Elections Act are annual. This would provide for a contribution system identical to that for individuals. We do not want two different kinds of funding for two different kinds of elections, whether for a leadership race or a general election.

The second amendment, the one we agree with based on our analysis, is the one about deadlines. Earlier, I said that the bill proposed an 18-month deadline for paying back a loan. Here, the government is proposing much more precise wording, and we have no problem with that. For a nomination contestant, the three-year period would apply as of the selection date; for a leadership candidate, it would be three years after the end of the race; and for a political party, it would be three years after the end of the fiscal year. What the government is asking for here is quite reasonable.

We do have a problem with the motion that proposes rejecting all of the Bloc Québécois amendments. This is very straightforward. The government wants to make political parties responsible for debts contracted by their candidates. We oppose that proposal. We think it is illogical to try to force a political party to take on its candidates' debts when the political party has no way to limit a candidate's expenditures. The example given was a simple one. A political party cannot currently do anything to prevent a candidate from taking out a $60,000 loan. In a case like that, the government's motion would be unreasonable.

The government motion allows an individual to borrow an unlimited amount in the name of a separate entity. To illustrate this, it is as though I were to borrow a large sum of money and when it came time to pay it back and I was unable to do so, I said it was up to my neighbour to pay it back, even though he knew nothing about the loan. We think this is nonsense and we would like to keep the bill the way it is concerning that particular clause.

I see I have one minute left. In conclusion, here is our problem with the last motion. In committee, the government introduced the Bloc Québécois' amendment. It was in favour of doing things the way we had proposed. Now, though, after reviewing the bill in committee, it has changed its position. That is another reason why we will oppose this amendment, although we are in favour of the bill.

The Conservative Party has had many problems these last few days. This whole issue of transparency and ethics has to go beyond mere slogans.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Before we proceed to questions and comments, 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 Cape Breton—Canso, Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for Malpeque, Canada Post.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans).

Certainly the party on this side supports transparency and accountability with respect to election financing and the Canada Elections Act. At committee, I understand, there were amendments made. That is why the caucus on this side will support the bill, with the amendments, but I gather the government will be challenging some of those amendments. That would be unfortunate. We will have to see where that takes us.

The other thing I need to say in regard to the bill is that although it is being presented by the Conservative Party as some new and revolutionary way of proceeding with this type of arrangement with respect to loans to candidates, et cetera, many aspects of the bill are in fact similar to what is already in force and what was in force under the leadership of our Liberal government.

Having said that, I think the bill makes things clearer in some areas. In that sense perhaps it is an improvement, but I do not think Canadians will be deceived by the fact that many of the provisions outlined in the bill are already in the law.

Perhaps I should step back a bit. As I understand it, what the bill is trying to deal with is the fact of a candidate running in a federal election, for example, where the rules are very strict--and so they should be--with respect to how people can accept donations or from whom they can accept donations. Those rules are fairly clear.

The intent, as I understand it, is that this bill tries to deal with people who might try to sidestep those rules by receiving loans from parties from whom they otherwise would not be able to receive loans, or by receiving loans at interest rates that are less than fair market value, which itself would constitute a benefit, et cetera.

Or the loan might be advanced during a campaign and then be forgiven. For example, the candidate who had access to the loan money might find that suddenly a year later the person from whom the candidate received the loan is washing his or her hands of it. The candidate might be told that he or she does not have to repay the loan. That would become a contribution. If the amount of the loan exceeds the amounts currently allowed under the Canada Elections Act, then surely the law would also apply to a loan that is forgiven, and surely a lower interest rate loan at less than fair market value would also constitute a benefit.

I think it is a good thing that people are not able to get around the rules or do things through the back door that they cannot do through the front door. To the extent that this bill clarifies those particular aspects, that is a positive development. However, under the existing act, the loans could not be forgiven without consequence, nor could loans be granted under the current provisions of the law if they exceed the donation limits.

This really goes back to our government's Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing). Our government began that process and that bill was passed into law. It severely restricted the amounts that could be donated to candidates or parties by corporations and unions, and it also restricted the amounts that could be paid by individuals.

The Conservative government, in Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, has made further changes to that, and in fact reduced the personal contributions from $5,000 to $1,100 per year, per party. What has happened, of course, is that it has made it more difficult for political parties to raise money.

The provisions of Bill C-24 and Bill C-2 allow for Elections Canada to reimburse candidates based on how many votes they received in an election, so essentially what has happened is the burden and the cost of election campaigning has been transferred from corporations, unions, and to some extent individuals, to the taxpayers at large.

One can debate that philosophy. I for one think it is unfortunate that corporations and unions are precluded from participating in the political process. I would agree that limits need to be placed on that, but I wonder why it is so horrible for corporate Canada and the unions to not be able to support financially political parties or candidates of their choice within certain limits.

Nonetheless, Bill C-24 has passed and is the law of Canada, and Bill C-2 makes further changes to that particular regime.

However, I find it strangely ironic that this party brings in this bill, Bill C-29, and argues that it is a whole new regime with respect to loans and elections. As I said earlier, it is not really that new, but at the same time the leader of that party, the Prime Minister, has refused to disclose the names of all the individuals and organizations that donated to his leadership campaign in 2002. That strikes me as being very hypocritical.

Our party went through a leadership campaign a couple of years ago. All the participants made full disclosure of the sources of their funding and it is a matter of public record. However, for some reason the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada refuses to disclose the names of those people who donated to his leadership campaign. By refusing to do that, it raises questions about who was behind his leadership bid.

It may raise questions inappropriately because perhaps everything was totally appropriate, but by virtue of the refusal to disclose, it sort of leaves questions in people's minds of who was actually supporting his leadership bid, and whether they had a particular agenda that they were promoting or advancing.

If we have full transparency and disclosure, I think we take away that kind of ambiguity. I for one am in favour of full transparency and accountability.

Under the old rules, if a corporation wanted to donate to my election campaign, that donation would be fully disclosed by Elections Canada. It would be on my website. It would be everywhere.

If the voters of Etobicoke North did not think it was appropriate for me to accept $500 from BASF Canada because they thought I had a hidden agenda and the company was buying my influence about something, then that is a fair debate. I would be happy to have that debate.

Full transparency and accountability are absolute musts. Members of Parliament should be prepared to defend their actions in an election and in the House.

It has sometimes been said that this place is like living in a fish bowl. If people are interested in what we are doing, they can find out exactly what we are doing. If we travel or someone has sponsored our travel, that information is on the public record. The Office of the Ethics Commissioner has a whole variety of reports that are available publicly. I think that is totally appropriate.

People should not be able to take advantage of loopholes in legislation and stay clear of contribution limits by taking loans from people. That is in the current legislation. If Bill C-29 clarifies that, then that would be a positive development.

Our critic has worked hard on this file. A number of positive amendments were made at committee. I hope the government reflects on those amendments and does not try to reverse them because they would improve the bill. With that caveat, I will be supporting the bill when it comes to the House at a later stage.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the times that we live in. We have just gone through one of the largest scandals in Canada with the sponsorship scandal.

This week the Liberal Party was holding a fundraiser and the sky was the limit. Liberal members were trying to work the loophole that the member was honestly talking about. The public really wants to see the government and all members working together to close as many loopholes as we can.

My colleague wanted to know why the government is doing it like this. The government is acting to ensure that political entities and wealthy interests cannot circumvent the contribution limits. In other words, loans that are made without reasonable expectation of repayment are essentially disguised contributions that could circumvent political financing rules.

The member talked about his own party's leadership campaign. Bob Rae received $845,000 in loans, $200,000 from his own brother. The change in Bill C-29 would ensure that candidates could not write-off unpaid loans after spending the money. Can the member say that he supports this?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fundraiser last night that the member referred to was totally within the rules.

He knows full well that if someone makes a donation and other individuals receive some value in return, there is a certain value ascribed to the goods or services that the individuals are receiving that has a fair market value and the differential is a political donation. When we get into silent auctions, there is a certain value that we derive and I am sure that is being looked at and will be dealt with.

I would like to come back to a point that I failed to mention which came up in the previous discussion and that is the public appointments commission. The Conservative government promised to have a totally non-partisan appointments process. Bill C-2 talked about that. The government set up a public appointments commission and brought in Mr. Gwyn Morgan to sit as chair. Mr. Morgan is an eminent Canadian who may have said things that were not totally appropriate. Nonetheless, the government operations and estimates committee did not want Mr. Morgan as chair.

The committee did not approve of Mr. Morgan, so the government had to find someone else because it is committed to a non-partisan appointments process. Instead of the government saying it gave its best shot, it threw in the towel.

If the government could not get Mr. Morgan then the whole idea of a non-partisan public appointments process would go out the window. That is like a little kid playing on the street and a bigger kid comes along and takes his toy. The game is then over. That is something the government should revisit and bring forward.

I think the member realizes that the bill deals with loans and that is what this issue is all about. Members on this side of the House will comply with all legislation this House passes, so I do not see any problem there at all.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would comment on the overall direction in which we find ourselves. We have eliminated the possibility of raising money from corporations. We have eliminated the possibility of raising money from unions. We have limited the ability to raise money from individuals to a little over $1,000 on an annual basis.

Now people, particularly in leadership positions, are facing having to raise money through loans et cetera, so they are now further restricted on their ability to raise loans. Let us add the fact that campaigns are funded by the taxpayers in a substantial manner.

We get all this essential silliness, spending all kinds of time fundraising instead of doing what the Canadian people hired us to do, which is to be legislators.

Is this just one more level of silliness that gets added on to the previous amounts of silliness that exist in this relationship between fundraising and legislation?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood raises a very good point.

The reason people have to get into huge loans if they are running for the leadership, for example, is that they have to raise, in many instances, $300,000, $400,000, or $500,000. They have a limited timeframe so they raise loans to finance their campaign.

I am all in favour of transparency. It seems to me transparency is the direction in which we should be going, and accountability and sanctions if someone breaks the rules.

However, the Conservatives have a whole range of regulations to basically restrict people. Some candidates would like to run for public office but feel constrained because of all these rules. I tend to agree with the member that we may not be moving in the right direction.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker mentioned that everything was okay with the fundraising initiative that was scheduled for last evening. I was wondering then why the event was cancelled, and further to that, during the hon. member's speech he said, or at least changed.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

You were not there? I missed it.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I would have been welcome.

He indicated that under the previous regime, loans could not be forgiven without consequence. I was wondering if he could outline for the House what the consequences would be for someone like Mr. Rae, who has a loan of $845,000.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman in question will have to comply with the current law which deals with loans, and whatever happens with Bill C-29, he will have to comply with that. I am sure he will do exactly that.

The event of last night, my understanding is that it went ahead, but I could me mistaken--

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I was there.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it did go ahead. Unfortunately, I could not make it, but I know it will be perfectly legal.

The member knows full well that if he has a political dinner for $100 a plate and if the value of the dinner is $35, then that is how it is valued, and the political donation is $65. It is as simple as that.

If he is doing a silent auction and he is bidding on a Rembrandt, if the value of that is $1.5 million, in that sense that is the value that person derives. I am sure the same model will be applied to whatever went on last night.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure today to speak to Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans).

First, I would like, as my colleagues have done, to remind the House that our party supports Bill C-29, which will partially fill some of the gaps in Bill C-2, which we considered earlier. While Bill C-29 fills some of those gaps, it does not fix all of the problems. There are things that we thought it was very important to fix some time ago and that we would have liked to see in Bill C-29 that are unfortunately not there. However, this bill does fill one important gap by providing better rules governing loans, to ensure that the ceilings are not deliberately circumvented.

As I said earlier, Bill C-29 fills some of the gaps in Bill C-2, but it does not fix everything. One of the things we would have liked to see incorporated in this bill is stronger provisions relating to protection for whistleblowers. Second, we would have liked to see reform of the Access to Information Act, because as we know the Information Commissioner has repeatedly pointed out that various measures were completely unacceptable and prevented members of the public from obtaining documents even though they should be available to the general public.

Unfortunately, we have seen this government, and not just this government but also the previous government, bring in a reform of the Access to Information Act in 2005 that essentially had two consequences. The reform proposed by the Liberals meant that administrative charges doubled for requests by the public and by groups and journalists, generally for information from various departments. Second, we realized, and we continue to realize, that when we, as elected members, make access to information requests, we run into certain exceptions. Very often, those exceptions are used by the government to make sure that documents that should be made public are unfortunately not accessible. In my opinion, that demonstrates once again that this government is completely lacking in transparency with respect to government decision-making and with respect to documents that are available to them and that could be used to inform the public about major issues.

We will recall that the government and the Conservative Party promised in the last election campaign to overhaul the Access to Information Act. On that point, I will quote a passage from the Conservative platform in the last election campaign.

The Conservative government had promised to reform the Access to Information Act. Here is what it said at that time: “A Conservative government will implement the Information Commissioner's recommendations for reform of the Access to Information Act.”

We must recall what the Information Commissioner said. He replied that the reason we need action and not further studies is because governments continue to distrust and resist the Access to Information Act and the oversight of the Information Commissioner.

Thus, a reform of the Access to Information Act is what was needed, and what is still needed. This reform needs to go even further than what the Liberal government proposed in 2005. Unfortunately, the current government is not fulfilling its obligations and not respecting the commitments it made to the people of Quebec and Canada during the last election campaign.

Let us not forget that Bill C-29 could have been an opportunity for this government to begin this overhaul of the Access to Information Act, thereby allowing the public to obtain essential documents in order to better understand the government decision-making process.

We also would have liked to see this bill protect whistleblowers. When there is a legal challenge, these whistleblowers cannot act and cannot defend themselves on an equal footing with other citizens or organizations that have ample means with which to defend themselves. Unfortunately, these whistelblowers will only be reimbursed for up to $1,500 in legal fees, which is a ridiculous amount for such coverage.

This demonstrates that, despite the sponsorship scandal, this government did not listen to the wishes of either the public or Justice Gomery, who called for greater transparency and greater reform. A few weeks ago, I heard Justice Gomery again say that too much power is concentrated and centralized in the Prime Minister's Office and that it was not healthy for a democracy. We would have therefore liked to see greater access and better coverage of legal fees for whistleblowers when the time comes to seek legal counsel.

We would have liked more guarantees to protect all Canadians who report wrongdoing within the government, not just public servants. Currently public servants enjoy some protection, but I think anyone who witnesses wrongdoing should benefit from the same protection under the current legislation as public servants.

Finally, and it is unfortunate, this bill fails to prevent the government from excluding crown corporations and other entities from the application of the Public Service Disclosure Protection Act. Quite often these crown corporations give out contracts or sometimes appoint cronies as CEOs at the behest of the government. We must make sure the government cannot exclude these crown corporations from the Public Service Disclosure Protection Act.

Bill C-2 is good, but it could be better. Bill C-29 is not good enough either. However, we agree that we need to have as many legislative guarantees as possible in order to prevent political parties, and leadership candidates in particular, from circumventing the ceilings. Furthermore, I must say it is totally unacceptable that these ceilings can be circumvented by taking out personal loans. Just look at the last leadership race when Bob Rae received loans totalling $705,000 and the creditors were John Rae and Bob Rae himself, who gave $125,000 to his own campaign. We must not be able to do indirectly what we are not allowed to do directly.

In closing, we support Bill C-29, but we would like to see better protection for whistleblowers and also a reform of the Access to Information Act.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He accurately reflected the concerns of the Bloc Québécois. I have a question for him.

In this House, for several weeks and months now, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has been examining a complaint by the chief electoral officer concerning 67 Conservative members, among them three ministers from Quebec, including the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages. They were denied reimbursement of their election expenses. Once again, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, under the Liberals, has been filibustering rather than examine this problem.

The Conservative Party wants to reform the current Elections Act once again, even though we know it does not respect it, because 67 Conservative members were not reimbursed. The party appealed to the courts to try to find any way it could to bypass the Elections Act and get its way.

My question is simple. Is it not worrisome for the people of Quebec and Canada to, once again, see the Conservative Party introduce an election bill that would enable it to circumvent the law?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. That is one of the problems with the existing legislation.

Some people think that this government bill will suddenly make the members opposite and Conservative candidates as white as snow. But how can they defend that kind of principle when in reality, some of their own members of Parliament and candidates refuse to comply with the law?

There is something else I did not mention in my speech. To prove that the government's intentions are honourable, the Prime Minister should agree to disclose the contributions he received during the last leadership race in 2002, when he was with the Canadian Alliance. If the government is truly motivated by a desire for transparency, then all Conservative candidates and members of Parliament, as well as the Prime Minister himself, should set an example and demonstrate transparency today.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon to the legislation relating to the accountability with respect to loans to political candidates and political parties.

I want to say at the outset that I do support the legislation but, like other speakers here this afternoon, I have some concerns, but the general thrust of the legislation is good. Anything that enhances transparency in the way politics is done in Canada is good. The public has a right to know who is lending money to any political party or any candidate for office, how much they loaned that particular person or party and what the terms of the loan are. The very same concept applies to guarantors because a guarantor, in most instances, is the actual lender in fact.

In my experience with political parties and political organizations, the banks do not have a big appetite to lend money to candidates or to political parties and they usually require a guarantor. The guarantor actually is the de facto lender of the money, so that is a positive development too.

The whole issue of the treatment of unpaid loans should be codified and understood so that everyone, including the public, understands how these issues are being dealt with, that the rules are known and that the public has a right to know what exactly is going on.

I should point out at the outset that we are really not breaking new ground because many of the issues have already been dealt with. Over the last six years there has been a major groundswell on the whole issue of political financing. It is very positive and most of the credit, I would submit, goes to the previous prime minister, Mr. Chrétien, who decreased, substantially, the amount that any person could give to any political candidate or party and also increased the amount that came from the government.

When we contrast what goes on in Canada to what goes on in the United States right now, it is dramatic. A congressman in the U.S. gets elected every second year. When those votes are counted and the person wins the election, everyone knows they have to start at eight o'clock the next morning raising money for the next election. They spend 23 months raising money for their next election, which is scheduled in 24 months' time, and the amount of money that is spent there, with no obvious limits, boggles the mind.

I am glad that I do not participate in that kind of environment. For many candidates, including myself, it is not one of the jobs that I find particularly attractive, trying to raise money, so I do think, to the credit of many people over the last five or six years, we are in a much better environment because of a number of changes and this is just one small additional aspect of the issue to give full disclosure to any loans.

I should point out to the public watching that under the existing elections financing legislation, each candidate is entitled to a rebate, which is approximately 50% of the legitimate expenses that a candidate spends in an election. I do not have my figures exactly correct but let us assume a candidate spends $60,000. In that election, the candidate is entitled to a rebate of 50%. Sometimes the federal party, depending on which party one belongs to, may take some of that back, but there is a rebate going back to that candidate whether the candidate wins or loses. However, I do believe the person needs to get over a certain threshold of the votes, which is not that significant.

There is a legitimate borrowing exercise because if candidates are with one of the major parties, Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic Party or the Bloc Québécois, they are reasonably certain they will get over the threshold and be entitled to the rebate and that they will have money coming in. It usually does not come in for about 12 months after the election is over but they will have the money coming in so there is nothing untoward in borrowing against that future rebate. That puts the whole debate into context.

However, there is a certain amount of hypocrisy going on with this legislation. I shake my head when I look at what is going on. What I am concerned about is what happens when people break the law and do not follow the Canada Elections Act. What happens to those types of individuals?

From my experience and from what I have seen going on over the last number of years, nothing or very little happens. We have a member of this House who was found in the election of 2004 to have overspent his limit by $31,000. I am speaking of the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

I have a certain amount of sympathy because I have been involved both as a candidate and as a campaign manager. Sometimes we ride our horse close to the cliff and sometimes at the end of it we just do not know exactly what is being spent. If a certain campaign goes over $1,000 or $2,000, it is unfortunate, there should be sanctions, but I personally have some sympathy for those situations because I have seen them happen.

However, in the case I mentioned, it was $31,000 he overspent. According to the report from Elections Canada, the money came from his car dealership. What happened? He was fined $500 and had absolutely no sanctions whatsoever. It is a joke. He is laughing at it. Nothing has been done in this particular situation, which is what I find very disturbing. The member is sitting today as a Conservative member laughing at the act and he is probably laughing at this particular debate. I find that somewhat hypocritical.

Another piece of hypocrisy that is going on in this House with regard to elections financing is the in and out scandal that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has been trying to get to the bottom of. I will describe it very briefly.

In the last election, the Conservative Party, to get the benefit of rebates, to which it was not entitled, would transfer money to a riding or a particular candidate and five minutes later the same amount of money would be transferred back to the central agency or the major party. When the candidate filed his or her election expenses return after the election, the candidate said that the money was a legitimate expense and wanted the 50% rebate. However, any person with any common sense and half a brain would realize that the rebate should not be given, and that was the position of the Chief Electoral Officer. This dispute is ongoing right now.

A parliamentary committee is trying its very best to get at this, to hold hearings and hear from witnesses to find out and report to Canadians what exactly is going on. However, the committee is being stymied by the Conservative Party. What is going on now are filibusters. People stay for five, six or seven hours simply so that this will not come to the public's attention. I find that very hypocritical and unfortunate.

A certain amount of hypocrisy is going on in the debate today and, if anyone is watching, I am sure they have come to that conclusion. However, coming back to the bill, as I said when I began, anything that increases the transparency of how candidates are financed and how they spend their money, which includes loans, guarantors and the terms of the loans, is beneficial. The public, in the long run, will be the winner.

However, I hope, at some point in time in the future, that we will have a look at sanctions because if a candidate overspends his or her election limit by 40% or 50%, then I would like to see a little more teeth in the particular legislation.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the conversation pieces that the hon. member brought forward to us and there were points for us to ponder.

He talked about hypocrisy and mentioned some historic cases where there were problems. The government is bringing forward this legislation because of those problems. We want to tighten things up. The Canadian public has much mistrust right now.

I would bring the member to an event that was held this week by the Liberal Party. It was trying to get around the rules and regulations by having corporations and wealthy individuals bid where the sky was the limit. The Liberals were told that it was unacceptable, they were caught, so they changed the event at the last minute.

What the government is trying to with this bill is very straightforward and simple. We want all Canadians to have an equal right to run for office, not just the wealthy. If candidates need loans, all we are asking is that they get the loans from legitimate sources, in other words, banks and loan institutions, not their wealthy friends. We are asking for support for this bill because we believe in equality for all Canadians who want to run for office.

I want to ask the member a question straight up. At his party's last leadership convention, Bob Rae, a Liberal leadership candidate, spent $845,000, $200,000 of which was from his own brother. Does the member think that is appropriate or does he prefer to have candidates borrow it from accredited lending institutions? What is better for all Canadians?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know all the facts but my understanding is that there was nothing wrong with that at all. It was fully disclosed to the public. The public knows exactly what Mr. Rae borrowed. He knows exactly what the terms were, who he borrowed it from and that, under the existing legislation, it has to be paid back within a certain period of time in accordance with the legislation that does exist.

There is something that I would really like to know. Back in 2002, the present Prime Minister went through a leadership campaign where he received millions and millions of dollars from companies, organizations, associations and people across Canada but he will not disclose who gave him the money. The public has been left to wonder who financed him, what the people received in return, what he demanded in return, and what access these people have.

We need to get to the bottom of that and to root it out so the public knows, or even right now, root it out and disclose it. My answer to the member is that tomorrow he should sit down beside the present Prime Minister and tell him to disclose the names of the people who financed his leadership campaign.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this seems to be a slinging match for hypocrisies.

The Prime Minister still has not revealed his loans and then the other members say that Mr. Rae has not paid off his loans and so on. The only people to blame for this entire idiotic exercise are the people who are in this chamber and who were in this chamber in the previous Parliament as well.

We have eliminated the ability to raise money from corporations and unions. We have severely circumscribed the ability to raise money from individuals. As the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore rightly pointed out, people get into a leadership race and they need the money immediately in order to run in a short period time. Naturally they get a loan of some kind or another, which creates a whole great panoply of other contradictions.

Would the hon. member entertain the notion that it is time to end this nonsense and simply have the entire functions of leadership candidacy funded by Elections Canada?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that I would agree with the premise of that. I do not think the public would want to be funding all aspects of leadership campaigns. I believe there should be perhaps further limits on spending.

I would disagree with that question. I think there is a rationale for spending limits and financing and loans in accordance with legislation that is transparent.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following this debate and am very pleased to make a few comments with respect to Bill C-29 and try to make it understandable for the viewers watching the proceedings.

To do that, I would like to sum up from my perspective how I view the whole issue with respect to accountability in election financing.

The public knows that as it stands right now there are huge restrictions with respect to how a candidate can raise the funds necessary to run an election. The public should be aware that under the Election Expenses Act there is a cap on how much can be spent in an election. There is a very clear and very transparent reporting process that the chief financial officer has to go through.

In fact, in my riding, my chief financial officer, who is a layperson, a long-time dedicated person in the riding and not an accountant, has said that the reporting procedures are becoming so exhaustive that one almost has to be an accountant. That is the degree of scrutiny that this is given. My reply to it is that we have to work around that issue because it is in the public interest to be totally transparent.

We are also aware that under the former regime unions and corporations had a cap on what they could contribute. In the regime that is now being entrenched in this bill, unions and corporations cannot make contributions. Also, there is a very clear stipulation that the cap on personal donations is $1,100.

I review those things because I always thought that public life and public service was one of the highest honours that an individual could be involved in and that could be granted to an individual. Therefore, anything that deals with the mechanics of taking out loans or whatever should be so clear and so transparent, but accessible and easy to do, and it should not be a disincentive for individuals to come forward and want to be part of one of the greatest traditions, which is the democratic tradition of seeking office, be it municipal, provincial or federal, or at the school board level or in other elected office.

I come from a very working class riding. When I reflect on my nearly 30 years of elected public office and reflect on the nature of support that I have been given, I can say that it has come from the people of our riding. At no time can I remember huge donations and so on.

However, I welcome a transparent regime. Having said that, I might say that this bill is transparent, that this is putting caps on amounts, tightening up and so on, but it gives me some concern. It gives the appearance that we are all equal and that we all have access to a bank and perhaps access to guarantors who have the means to do that. It gives the appearance that there is equity where in fact there is not. We know there is not.

When one wants to put on a cap of $1,100, how many members have constituents who can avail themselves of the cap? The reality is usually $100, $50 or $25. The reality is little fundraisers that raise perhaps $2,000 or $3,000 at the most, but often they raise $400 or $500. That is the reality. That reality is reported in the existing legislation.

Also, if an association takes out a loan, it or the party is going to be held liable, but it is the association in the first instance. It will be held liable. I would ask members about this. In their associations, how many people have the capacity to want to be liable if, let us say, a loan that is taken out is not repaid? It could happen for whatever reason, such as death. It could happen for a number of reasons.

If we are elected, we are accountable, because someone is going to come over and say to us, listen, that loan has not been paid back and that seat will be lost. That is a consequence. That sure would plug the gap that might exist if we were worried that candidates would not pay back the loan.

Mark you, Mr. Speaker, I am saying that it is very clear that one has to report it, so the issue is on consequence. If one did not get elected but still had exceeded and had not paid the loan, one's association is liable for it.

We know that the banks are going to come back for it. In this regime being put forward here, the banks are a lending institution at whatever the interest rate is. In my experience, I have had the opportunity to raise money from people and report it, people who have had confidence in me, as all my colleagues have experienced.

It seems to me that this legislation is wrong-headed in the sense that it looks as if we are all trying to circumvent the law. That was the characterization that was made, albeit in a different context: that we are trying to circumvent the reporting process. We are not. There is an exhaustive reporting process and yet we are coming forward and saying this because the consequences have not been implemented as clearly as they should be by the Chief Electoral Officer and a case was cited.

What is at fault is that the consequences should be laid out in a clearer way if we are not satisfied with the adjudication that took place, but that is not what is being done. What is being done is a whole new regime that looks like it treats us all fairly and equitably, but ignores the reality that right across this country, from coast to coast to coast, there are communities of very fragile and limited means. Yet the associations are going to be held liable if anything should go wrong.

It is almost a washing of hands with a bureaucratic mechanism. It is not intentional, but the end result will be the same. It will be a disincentive for people who want to be part of the process of being on an association, I would think, and I am saying this from the experience that I have had with the kinds of social and economic backgrounds of the people, God bless them, who sit on the executive of my association. I am sure that is the case in many of the constituencies.

There have been amendments made that I think are excellent. I will be supporting the bill, but I have to say that I think it places a cloud on this because there have been consequences that were disproportionate to what occurred with respect to the reporting, but the reporting is very comprehensive.

If there is any fault, it is that we just did not put down what the consequences would be if there were a deliberate circumventing of the law. What we have here, I think, is just overly bureaucratic and will not encourage people to be part of the democratic process in standing for candidacy or being part of local associations.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to what the member had to say. I know that he is an honourable member, as many of the members of the House are. They would never think of doing anything to circumvent the law, but we saw an example this week with a Liberal fundraiser right here in Ottawa. It was advertised that corporations could go there and bid. The sky was the limit. Basically, they were caught beforehand.

I know that if there is a loophole some people and associations will try to get around it. It is not the intention of this law to put everybody in the same boat or to say that everybody will not respect the law. We are just trying to tighten things up. The real question in this is the accountability of loans. That is what we are talking about today.

We realize as candidates that occasionally we are going to need a loan, but what this bill intends is that we go to a bank or a legitimate lending institution, or we go to a wealthy friend who can give us that money as a loan. There may be members out there whose loans have not been paid back. It is not clear. We are trying to clarify things so the Canadian people can trust their politicians and trust their system.

I am asking the member if he is in favour of that. Is he in favour of allowing a level playing field? Is he in favour of allowing a level playing field for people who are not wealthy or do not have wealthy friends? They will have to go to the bank. Everybody will have to go to the bank. It is going to have to be documented, with interest paid, and people are going to know that those loans have been paid back. Is he in favour of that?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely in favour of a level playing field, but I thought that what I had addressed was the point that I do not think it is a level playing field with respect to the ability to take out loans in the manner that has been presented in this legislation.

I think the emphasis should be on the reporting and the consequences if loans are not paid back. If there is a transparency with respect to who has loaned the money and the terms within which that must be paid back, why does it matter where it comes from if it is reported and on the record?

If that were the approach, with the emphasis on that, then I would think that through a consequential approach we would have a level playing field. I may be wrong, but at the end of the day I think that this is going to be a disincentive because it is not a level playing field for that very reason.

I believe that people should have the capacity to support the democratic process, and not with anything in mind that there would be some advantage sought from it. When they loan, if it is on the public record and it has to be paid back, why should it matter whether they are going to support a Conservative candidate, a Liberal candidate, the NDP or the Bloc?

The fact is that everyone knows and it is on the record that the money has been taken out, there is a cap on it and it has to be paid back. That is what the public wants to know.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the hon. member has had many years in politics. He is well aware of the difficulty of fundraising to begin with and especially now with the rules that all parliamentarians are working under.

When it comes to the whole issue of loans, does the hon. member have a concern about just who would run for leadership, no matter what party? With the kinds of rules we have, people cannot put in their own personal money either so it becomes very difficult to raise the money.

Would he have any further comments on whether this is going to discourage people who want to get involved in political life?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not address the issue around leadership, but on the last statement with respect to encouraging people to come into public life, I think the bureaucratic regime in the bill is going to make it more difficult for people and provide less of an incentive to actively get involved in public life. I do not think that is intended by the legislation, but I think that is what is going to happen.

The House resumed from February 14 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.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to speaking on this piece of legislation. Similar legislation has been before the House on previous occasions. This bill has gone to committee and now is back in the House. I am going to talk about some of the committee recommendations throughout my speech.

One thing we have seen recently is that Canadians have been very intrigued by and very involved in following the U.S. Democratic race, with Barack Obama now poised to battle the Republicans and John McCain. I was always taken by the number of Canadians and the number of constituents and friends who were very much interested in that race and in the enormity of the U.S. political leadership race, including the work that goes into it, the money that goes into it and the whole issue of financing around selecting a leader for a particular party, in contrast to what we do here in Canada.

Obama himself was raising in the neighbourhood of $1.5 million to $2 million each day. The burn rate was about $2 million a day, depending on whether there was a caucus or a vote at the end of that month. An enormous amount of financial resources went into the selection of that leader.

That is in contrast to what happens here in Canada. I spoke with my colleague, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Over the course of the recent leadership campaign in the Liberal Party of Canada, he was a candidate and raised in the neighbourhood of $2 million. Over the entire length of that leadership campaign he raised $2 million, while the candidates to the south in the American race would do that in a day and burn that in a day.

Looking at our entire field, I think we had nine or ten who started out. The entire cost of our leadership campaign for the candidates was $14 million. I know that it has been an issue in the House and there have been questions and points made on those debts being repaid, but $14 million is a significant amount of money in the political landscape of this country, and $12 million has been paid back so far.

Last Monday was a significant date. Those leadership candidates had to have their repayment schedules tendered with Elections Canada as we go forward. They all complied with that rule. They all complied with those conditions. Those repayment plans have been put forward and approved by Elections Canada. However, we do see a stark contrast between the American system and the Canadian system.

I had the great privilege in 2003 to be appointed parliamentary secretary to the then prime minister, Jean Chrétien. In his last year in office, he brought to Parliament and to the Canadian people a shift in the paradigm with regard to how political parties are funded in this country. It was very significant.

For years, many political parties were funded by big corporations. As for the Liberal Party itself, looking back prior to 2003, major portions of our overall budget were contributed by the banks and major corporations. Whether it was real or not, there was always this perception that any of those large donors could curry favour with the government. We can argue about whether they did or did not. I am not convinced that they did.

The banks were fairly significant contributors. The biggest issue they tried to continue to push with the government was that of being able to merge. They pushed the issue of bank mergers for years and years.

They contributed to the parties, but those mergers were never approved by the Parliament of Canada and never supported by the Liberal Party. Nonetheless, whether or not they did curry favour, it was the perception. In essence, that is really what initiated and then drove the whole process in changing the way we fund political parties.

We made that shift. We certainly reduced the amount that corporations could contribute to national campaigns and to riding associations in the preparation of their campaigns. We also reduced the ability of unions to contribute as well. There were very significant changes through 2003.

Now, with the Federal Accountability Act put forward by the current government, we know that corporate dollars and dollars provided by unions are destined not to be accepted for political contributions. There was also an outright ban on loans from associations or unions.

As I said, this legislation in front of us has come to the House before. It was referred back to committee. Some very significant amendments were proposed through committee. There are three that I want to speak about and then I want to talk about the government motions.

The first amendment was put forward by the government itself. The Conservatives put forth an amendment to allow for loans and sureties that are repaid in the calendar year to not count against donation limits for that year. That was supported by all parties.

To give an example, if person A lends candidate B $1,000 in February and then repays the loan by April, then person A would be allowed to make another $1,000 loan guarantee in that same fiscal period. It makes sense and was supported by all the parties within the committee.

A motion put forward by our party and supported by the Bloc would have amended the bill to allow for donations to be made to leadership contestants on an annual basis rather than as the current law has it. That was voted down. It was not supported by the Conservatives or the NDP. The Bloc also brought forward an amendment.

I am running out of time, but let me say that now the Conservatives are looking at gutting those amendments that were made in committee. They are looking at taking them out of the bill. We do not think that is right.

The government is looking at putting forward three of its own motions. When we send a bill back to committee and have the opportunity to draw on the testimony of expert witnesses, I think we are foolhardy not to utilize that testimony. We do not think it is prudent or wise not to use it.

When the committee makes recommendations, we should stand by them. Certainly in this case, with the three recommendations that came from committee on this piece of legislation, it is the position of our party that we would like to see them included in the legislation.

Hopefully as this debate goes forward each of the parties will have an opportunity to speak to these amendments and to the government motions. Should there be support for those three amendments from committee, I think members will see the official opposition supporting this legislation.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the eloquence of my hon. colleague from Cape Breton—Canso in talking about matters that I think are important to this entire Parliament.

He mentioned that several amendments were brought forward at committee and were subsequently withdrawn. I would ask the member to give us this thoughts on this.

After a committee has deliberated on this, taking valuable input from witnesses and using its own collective wisdom as parliamentarians from all sides of the House, after all of that, why is it that a standing committee of the House of Commons could forward amendments after significant deliberation only to have them thrown out? Could the hon. member comment on what that does to the whole process of crafting better legislation for the protection of the interests of all Canadians?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as committees do their work, I think many committees function well and do so in the best interests of the people of a particular community that they serve. In this instance, where there is political benefit, I see the government seeing that the amendments that were there levelled the playing field. If taken out, there would be a disadvantage to the Liberal Party of Canada.

I think it is well known that we have had struggles adapting to the new reforms, even when we presented them initially. We have had challenges. I think things are starting to turn the corner and improve as far as broadening our base of support. That would be for leaderships plus the funding of the parties, and election funding.

Certainly, when the two right-wing parties merged, the Progressive Conservatives and the Reformers, the Reformers had a broad base of support. They were able to take that and evolve that into where they are now for funding their party. They are fairly comfortable where they are.

We are yet to reach that point, but in striking the amendments that have been presented by the committee, that would further handcuff our party. It would be a greater challenge for us to reach that maturity of a broader donor base and so we would hope that those amendments, as presented in committee, will stand. We would be able to support the legislation should they stand.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the fact that toward the end of his response to the question, the hon. member got to what I think is the nub of the issue, that he sees the amendments that were proposed as having policy merit. I must admit that I do not really agree with him on that point, but I am glad he said that because he had been feeling a bit frustrated during his earlier remarks when he was talking about the process, saying that we ought not in this chamber to be revisiting amendments made in committee.

Well, that is why the process is set up this way. Committees make recommendations effectively to the House and the House can either accept them or reject them. That is the purpose of doing things this way. If we wanted to have the committee's word be the final word, we would change the Standing Order's instructions.

I just wanted to get that on the record because I do not think that process or argument was really very legitimate.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I will take note of that, Mr. Speaker, but I know in no way would he want to diminish or dismiss the good work that committees do. In this particular case, I would hope that the government would abide by the human resources committee. In this particular case, I see that the recommendations that came forward from committee are strong. They held a broad base of support within that committee and I would hope that they would stand here in the House.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on this particular legislation. I will join with my colleague in asking the government to resume a principled position of respecting the will of Parliament, the will of committees, and maintain the substance of the amendments that were put forward by the committee during the course of its deliberations. These, of course, were very well thought out. They received input from Canadians from all over, from all walks of life, but expert opinion as well.

I think it is very important that when we look at new drafts of the Canada Elections Act, we look at all the issues. One of things that I think is missing here is that there are obviously other issues as well that the government has not brought forward for consideration.

For example, just not too long ago, there was an issue where the governing party, the Conservative Party of Canada, was involved in a dispute with Elections Canada over the inclusion or the non-inclusion of convention fees as they relate to a political contribution which is tax receiptable. The dispute went on. There was much dissatisfaction expressed by the government toward Elections Canada on its point of view.

However, I believe, at the end of the day, there was some reconciliation that the Conservative Party of Canada had the matter wrong and Elections Canada had the matter right. We do not really know exactly what the Conservatives did about that, it has not been widely reported, but we understand that they have accepted that because they have offered no amendments or revisions to the Elections Act to provide any further clarity toward their point of view.

The second issue, of course, is related to the supposed in and out scandal. In my own constituency, the Conservative candidate in the last election was named by Elections Canada as participating in that. I understand, and I fully believe, he probably did so completely unwittingly. His official agent was given specific information from the party offices, the headquarters, related to the nature of the transfer.

Probably questions should have been asked, but they were not. But, of course, within the Elections Canada Act, if there is a dispute about that, the governing party has offered no amendments to put forward its point of view on that. That I think is very relevant.

In my own constituency of Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, about a year and a half ago, the entire Conservative riding association resigned en masse, I was told this by a former executive of the riding association, over a dispute about the Atlantic accord. It took this position principally on principle, but it did so because it was very dissatisfied with the nature of the political process. It was given a promise and a commitment that it would indeed be honoured. The government's position at the time was that--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order. It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business, as listed on today's order paper.

When we return to the study of Bill C-29, there will be seven minutes left for the hon. member.

The House resumed from June 6 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.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The question is on Motion No 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Karen Redman]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred until 3 o'clock tomorrow.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The vote on the motions will be deferred until 3 o'clock tomorrow.

The House resumed from June 9 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.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

It being 3:07 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-29.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #144

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 1 carried.

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

The hon. Chief Government Whip on a point of order.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent of the members present to apply the results on vote just taken to the motion now before the House, with Conservative members present voting yes.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there agreement to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is voting yes on this motion.

[Blair Wilson, Independent, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of this motion.

[Bill Casey, Independent, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I vote in favour of the motion.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to vote when you give me the opportunity. I am voting for this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #145

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 2 carried.

The next question is on Motion No. 3.

The hon. Chief Government Whip.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote taken on Motion No. 1 to the motion now before the House.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member from Thunder Bay has left the chamber.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

With that one change, is it agreed that we apply the vote on Motion No. 1 to Motion No. 3?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #146

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 3 carried.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of vote just taken to the motion now before the House, with Conservative members present voting in favour.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting against the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is voting yes on the motion.

[Blair Wilson, Independent, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of this motion.

[Bill Casey, Independent, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the motion.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of this motion.

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

Vote #147

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.