This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #112 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was loan.

Topics

Business of the House

10:05 a.m.

Prince George—Peace River B.C.

Conservative

Jay Hill ConservativeSecretary of State and Chief Government Whip

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and discussions between all parties. I think if you seek it you may find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, in relation to Bill C-60, on Monday, June 16, 2008, a member from each recognized party may speak for a period not exceeding 10 minutes, after which time the bill shall be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence and the standing committee shall be permitted to meet that day.

Business of the House

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Does the hon. chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Business of the House

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the House

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Business of the House

10:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the House

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans), be read the third time and passed.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, we are continuing debate on Bill C-29, which is a bill that the government has put forward to regulate loans made in political campaigns: elections, leadership contests and nominations.

It is an area that is probably not well understood by most people who do not participate in the political process. It is perhaps sometimes a little more complicated now than I think it needs to be, but nonetheless it is an area that does need some regulation. Federal laws have attempted to do that over the last few years.

I want to start by saying that a loan is actually integral to many campaigns. It is facilitatory to a campaign. It enables many campaigns to get up and running when there may not be sufficient funds at the beginning of the campaign.

The dynamic of a campaign varies in regard to candidate, place and circumstance, but in most campaigns there are a lot of expenses. I am talking first about campaigns for elections to the House of Commons. There are a lot of expenses at the front end of a campaign. I guess that is so in the business world too.

At the front end of a campaign, there are expenses. Perhaps one has to secure premises for a campaign office or pay cash for election signs and brochures. Deposits are required on telephones or other equipment such as computers and also on leases. At the front end of the campaign, there actually is a fair bit of uploading of the expenses.

Of course, the fundraising for a campaign can happen before the campaign, during the campaign and after the campaign, but the cash need is right at the beginning. Thus, there is the need for such a loan for most campaigns.

A lot of campaigns will have already fundraised and will have enough money to get going. Some members around here are fortunate enough to have raised enough money before the campaign even starts, keeping in mind that when we seek election to the House of Commons, there are election spending limits.

We all know pretty much what the spending limit is. For most of us, it is in the range of $70,000 or $80,000 per campaign. If a candidate has raised that at the beginning, he or she is ready to go, but what about those who have not?

For example, a member of Parliament is supposed to know roughly when an election is coming, and he or she can raise money. On the other hand, a candidate who is not an incumbent will often come in as a nominated candidate for a party that is not holding the riding. Often that person has not had a run-up of one, two, three or four years in raising money.

There is a conspicuous need in that case. A person who wants to run for Parliament for a party that has not held a riding may have a significant cash need at the beginning of a campaign. The only way to bridge that cash need is to borrow the money.

Over the past century, that money has come from friends or the father-in-law, or banks or other financial institutions, and we have managed to make do. However, recently there have been suggestions that there have been occasions when these loans have been given or granted and then, at some point after the event, they have been forgiven, so that the candidate who borrowed the money never actually had to pay the money back.

In our electoral system, that might be seen as unfair. I have a very extreme example, one that will probably never happen. Let us say that an individual says he or she is going to run for party A. Party A tells that individual not to worry, that the party will lend him or her the money to get going, and that Mr. X will lend the individual $50,000. They go through the campaign. When it is over, let us say that the candidate is unsuccessful and Mr. X says that is okay, it was his obligation to the party and he is forgiving the loan.

Let us contrast that situation with another individual who has raised $100 here and there and has worked hard and operated within the rules. It may be seen as quite unfair that a candidate or party has a rich friend who basically underwrites the whole thing and seems to circumvent what we now have, which is election contribution limits. For an individual, the limit is about $1,100 per person. A $50,000 loan lent and forgiven obviously circumvents the intent of the election contribution limits that we already have in law.

For some reason, though, notwithstanding that we have made some corrections in the past, the government party here still thinks that these loans are a big problem. It has come back with this legislation that knocks them down and almost squeezes them out of existence.

I have to say that most businesses need these types of loans. They are a part of how our economy operates. A campaign is no different. Many people have mortgages on their homes, car loans and lines of credit. Why would a campaign for the House of Commons or for a leadership not have the same kinds of financial needs? I think they do.

Under our Constitution, people who run for office ought not to be prejudiced or handicapped any more than an ordinary citizen out there doing other things, with reasonable constraints. I agree that any legislation which prevents forgiveness of a huge loan that would circumvent the election contribution limits should be established. That would be justifiable, in my view.

In this legislation, for some reason, the government, and I believe it is supported by one or two of the other opposition parties, sees a need to micromanage the loan situation, in my view overly, to the point where I think it may have crossed the line. I will explain this in my remarks a little later. Having started with the premise that we have to in some ways restrict the loan arrangements, I am suggesting that the provisions in this bill go way too far.

The amendments in this bill restrict the amount of a loan that an individual can make. I am not sure why that has to be. I can see why there is an election contribution limit, but if a loan has to be made and there has to be transparency and disclosure of it and it has to be repaid, I do not understand why it is necessary to restrict the amount that an individual can actually lend. It enforces a repayment regime. I question whether it is necessary to impose an actual time limited regime. In this case, the bill does that.

It does something else that in my view is quite insidious and unfair. The legislation says that if a loan is not repaid in a particular campaign, then the political party under which that person ran must assume that debt.

For the average citizen that may sound almost all right and what is the big deal, but if we go down to the riding level, where we have three, four or five parties running, not each of these parties running candidates at the local level are smooth-oiled machines. These are regular Canadians, some of them for the first time embarking on a run for office.

It is possible that a particular candidate may on his or her own volition, wittingly or unwittingly, borrow a ton of money. The main party may not know about it and the central campaign may not know about it. However, at the end of the time period, and it would be a sad comment on the individual, the individual could say, “To heck with it. I'm walking. I'm declaring bankruptcy”, and the main party would be stuck with that debt. That would create a huge liability contingency for all the political parties.

The large political parties, the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada, and I think the other parties represented in the House have fairly decent financial means. However, there are other political parties out on the street. Our Elections Act provides for that.

Those parties are being forced, under this legislation, to play by those same rules. I have a sense that it is unfair to impose that kind of a rule on a new or young political party. It could seriously damage it financially in a circumstance where the main party itself does not have control over what its candidates are spending and borrowing. There is no provision in our law that would allow that to happen. I could not conceive of one.

Therefore, this is a serious problem and I absolutely do not support that. I am going to do everything I can inside the House and outside, and later, to make sure this provision is not applied.

The next area I want to touch on has to do with the relationship between what this bill tries to do and our constitutional freedom. I am of the view that some of these provisions do not pass constitutional muster. I think they are vulnerable under our Constitution.

It is not clear to me that anyone has measured and assessed the constitutional implications of some of the measures in this bill. Certain parts of this legislation impose these loan restrictions. One in particular states that a candidate for nomination, or a candidate for office, or a candidate for leadership can only borrow from a financial institution. I think we have a problem.

As I said earlier, it is not clear to me why we have to restrict loans, coming only from financial institutions. It seems kind of reasonable, like we would just want to buy beer from a beer store or buy liquor from a liquor store. However, in terms of loans, this is a much different thing.

I have to say there is the perspective of the borrower, that is the candidate, which is pretty much the perspective that the government has imposed on this bill and which the other two opposition parties appear to be supporting. However, there is another perspective and that is the perspective of the lender. Of course, the lenders include everybody else in this country. We sometimes around this place focus a little too much on who we are as MPs and I am as guilty of that sometimes as others.

However, when we are talking about lending money to campaigns, it is everybody else in the country. It is all of the businesses, all of the financial institutions, all of the fathers-in-law that might lend money, or wherever we might borrow money. It is all of our citizens.

They have the right to all of our freedoms and the right to be unrestricted in what they do. I ask, why should an individual be restricted in lending money to a political campaign when a financial institution is not? What the heck are we doing? We curtail what a citizen can do, when we do not curtail what a financial institution can do. That is wrong. That is turning the whole thing on its head. In the government's rush to nail this area down with rules so restrictive, we will have to hire another army of accountants to police it.

The Conservatives have actually managed to abridge the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens, and the only ones they wanted to leave out are the financial institutions. God love the financial institutions. We love them. We are indebted to them. We are in hock to them.

However, I have to say that the government and Parliament cannot abridge the freedoms of our citizens unless they do it properly under our Constitution. They can only abridge those freedoms, unless they do it, if they do it, for reasons that are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.

Who, on the government side, has articulated the demonstrably justifiable reasons for abridging the freedom of Canadians to participate in political campaigns, for example, by lending money, which has to be repaid, to a candidate?

There are many other types of lending institutions in society. They can lend money to buy cars. They can lend money to buy houses. They can lend money to take a bus trip, but they cannot lend money to one of the most vital institutions of our democracy, which is an election campaign.

I do not think I have heard this come up earlier, but it is a real issue for me and it has to be dealt with. The bill is at third reading. It is very tough to fix a bill at third reading, in fact we cannot.

I am inviting the other place, when it sees the bill, to review it with this perspective in mind. If the government cannot come up with reasons to abridge the rights and freedoms of Canadians out there in the way I just described it, that are demonstrably justifiable, then this provision that prohibits individuals from lending to political campaigns is not constitutionally enforceable, and it will go down. I will help to bring it down if I can. I am sure I will be able to help somewhere.

I ask the other place, when and if it has a chance to look at this bill, which I am sure it will if we pass it at third reading, to look at it.

There is a second side of the coin in insisting that only financial institutions can lend the money and it is this. We are forcing financial institutions to become partners on the street with political campaigns, and this our banks have never wanted to do. It is very difficult for them to do it. I do not know how we can force a bank manager in a particular riding to start picking and choosing between the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, and all of the other political parties. If they lend to one, do they have to lend to the others?

There is more than one bank, but this forces the banks, in a sense, to either politicize themselves or to be seen to be politicizing themselves, and this is not right either. This is a problem and I do not think that has been adequately articulated.

The bill should have had some fixes. The committee tried to fix the bill and I thought the bill had been fixed, but when we got it back to the House, the government party, in league with other parties, decided it would remove those amendments.

I am very concerned about the constitutionality of this and its impact on the street. I think we are making a mistake and for that reason I am not going to support the bill.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question, based on not today's presentation but on a comment that the hon. member made yesterday. I had spoken yesterday in questions and comments at great length about the fact that several of the Liberal leadership candidates, from their previous leadership campaign, had missed a deadline, the 18 month repayment deadline, and were seeking extensions or some other form of repayment options with Elections Canada.

The member, in response to my comments, stood in this place and went on at great length, I would suggest, to suggest my comments were in error, that there was really no 18 month repayment required. I would point out to the member that according to Elections Canada, it states so quite clearly. It says that contestants are required, not may or perhaps, to pay any outstanding debts within 18 months of the end of the contest. Of course, the end of that contest, the 18 month period, in the case of the Liberal leadership campaign, came in early June of this year.

There are some other recourses if they fail to repay at the end of the 18 month period, but the fact is there is an 18 month repayment requirement. I wonder if my hon. colleague would care to retract his comments from yesterday.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is my view that the hon. member is still misleading the House and the public. He has used the term “debt”. The word used in the statute is a “claim”. It is claims that must be repaid within 18 months and there is an explicit exception for loans, where the loan has been turned into a written agreement.

I am sick and tired of hearing the government twist reality into its propaganda, the twisting of reality. If it were an 18 month deadline, may I ask anyone around here to tell me the implication of that. There was no implication when the 18 months came and went. The reason is that loans to campaigns are not claims until the person who makes the loan makes it a claim and the legislation explicitly states that if there is a loan, and it is in a written agreement for repayment, then it is accepted from the definition of the claim.

I cannot say that too many times, but let that please be the end of this misleading hokey foisted upon this House and the public by the government.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

An hon. member

You should be in Hollywood.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Well, I am prepared to go anywhere and say this, and I am prepared to actually have a chat with Elections Canada and the lawyers at Elections Canada. Let us get this nailed down because everyone knows here that if there is a written agreement to repay a loan, it runs out beyond the 18 months, and that is exactly what has happened.

Of the $12 million borrowed for the Liberal leadership campaigns, approximately $10 million has been repaid and there is still $1.5 million or $2 million to go and that will run over for the next year or so. But, relax.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River that the whole principle behind the bill is to take big money out of politics so there is no unfair competitive advantage to any person running for politics because of who he or she knows.

I want to challenge my colleague on this idea and ask him to elaborate on it. Where does he get the idea that it would be better to have the loan loophole come from individuals rather than from financial institutions? The whole premise of that clause in the bill is to avoid the “good ol' boy” connections as well as the connections with business and unions, where they are not allowed to donate a single penny to an election campaign.

Under the current loophole, my union, the carpenters union, could loan me $100,000 and not push me to pay it back. That would be fundamentally wrong. It would give me an inside competitive advantage over other people running in the same election campaign who may not have connections with a union, or a business, or a rich uncle or an individual lending it to themselves. For example, it is fundamentally wrong for a guy who owns a car dealership to have his dealership loan him $250,000. However, it is perfectly legitimate for that same individual to get a $30,000 or $50,000 start-up loan from a bank or a credit union. In fact, it is necessary if we are to give equal access to the electoral system to all people who want to seek office.

My colleague has a convoluted, pretzel logic. He is a complicated man and an intellectual, but this reasoning is so convoluted that it does not hold water.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that the objective is to squeeze big money out of political campaigns, but this legislation would not squeeze big money out. It allows banks to lend the big money. If he thinks the “good ol' boy” network does not include bank managers, then he is deluding himself there as well.

In terms of logic, if it is okay for a bank to lend $20,000 to get a campaign up and running then, why is it not okay for a citizen to lend $20,000 to get a campaign up and running, on the assumption that the money has to be paid back and that it is disclosed as part of the campaign? This is how we do it now.

I do not understand why the hon. member is so happy foisting upon the banks the sole responsibility for providing the interim cash flow, the line of credit, or the loan, for a political campaign. All citizens should have that right, provided there is disclosure and the amount is repaid.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, much to the chagrin, I am sure, of my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River, I will return to the fact, and I emphasize the word “fact”, that any unpaid debts at the end of 18 months of a leadership campaign must be repaid. That is quite clear in the elections act.

My hon. colleague has said that he is sick and tired of hearing this and that these words are being twisted because they are not debts but claims. I point out for the hon. member that the act currently includes loans as claims. Therefore, any unpaid loan is an unpaid claim.

I will give the member this opportunity to retract his earlier comments. Eighteen months is the deadline for the repayment of loans in a leadership campaign. Would he care to retract his statement now?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Not a chance, Mr. Speaker. A loan is mentioned in the act if it is a loan that is reduced, in writing, with a term commitment to repay the loan. It is explicitly excepted from the claim provisions that have the 18 month deadline.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of this House, that at the end of today's debate on Bill C-474, standing in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley West, all report stage motions be deemed adopted, the bill be deemed concurred in at report stage with further amendments and be deemed read a third time and passed.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Toronto Centre.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I participate in this debate with some considerable interest.

I do not want to bore members, but I have been elected nine times, federally and provincially, under either federal or provincial statutes. I have run for two leadership contests in two different political parties in two different political jurisdictions, once successfully and once unsuccessfully, but both thoroughly enjoyable experiences.

I have had quite a considerable amount of experience, since first being elected to this place in 1978 and in the province of Ontario in 1982, in looking at the question of election financing. Therefore, I would like to put the debate on this set of amendments in a context.

For a long time, in most provinces, there were very few limits on contributions and very little transparency in the system with respect to who could spend what, whatever limits there might be, and what had to be declared of did not have to be declared. Companies, unions and individuals were allowed to give. Looking around the world, this is what pertains in a great many jurisdictions.

I think there is a very widespread feeling, and certainly one that I share, that this is not a very desirable circumstance in which our democracy should operate and that our democracy should operate under the rule of law, under a rule of transparency and of accountability and under the principle that one does not have to be rich to run for political office and that political office should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their circumstances.

Speaking very personally, the first time I ran for Parliament in 1978, I ran for a nomination in which I would have spent somewhere in the order of $500. The money was raised from a group of friends of mine from law school, who all contributed money so I could run for the nomination. The spending limit at the time I was elected would have been something in the order of $25,000 to $30,000. Contributions came in large and small amounts. It was, by any stretch of the imagination, in discussing with my American or British friends how that system compared with others, a very democratic and open system.

In the early 1970s in the province of Ontario, the premier of the day, Mr. Davis, asked Dalton Camp to chair an inquiry into election financing in the province because there had been a great deal of concern about the principles, which I have outlined: the principle of transparency, the principle of accountability and the principle that the system should be seen to be fair and should be seen to be operating in a fair manner.

Mr. Camp was a Progressive Conservative of some note and he wrote what I think many people would regard as a very fine report. He was assisted in that regard by Mr. Doug Fisher, who is well known to many of us as a public figure and commentator, a former member in this place, and by the former leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario, Mr. Farquhar Oliver as well.

They produced a report that set out some of these principles, but it also did something else, which is worth noting. The way Mr. Davis approached it was to go to the other political parties and say, “We have a problem”, not “I have a problem”, or not “I want to manipulate the system to my temporary advantage”, but “We have a general problem and as much as possible, we should try to regulate the question of election financing by consensus”.

As much as possible, the participants in politics, the political parties, should try to create institutions and methods of operation and establish a broad basis of consensus and stability that would allow us to proceed in a way that no one would be able to suggest that somehow, for reasons of temporary advantage of one kind or another, we would make a change, a change that would be seen to be benefiting one political party as opposed to another.

We all know that nothing could be more subversive of our democratic process than to have a party in government suddenly decide that it would change the rules, so it would completely undermine the position, the credibility and the ability of other parties to operate in that system.

I make no secret of my friendship with Mr. Davis and of my great admiration for him. He and I have since had occasion to work together on many different tasks and projects, including most recently the report that we wrote on improving higher education in the province of Ontario.

I know Mr. Davis continues to regard me as philosophically misguided, as he would put it, but nevertheless our friendship remains very strong. I have great admiration for his sense of occasion and his sense of critical times in the life of the province. He was not simply going to exercise partisan advantage in order to achieve something. He was going to be doing something on behalf of all the people of the province. No issue reflected this more significantly than the question of election financing.

I could tell a similar story about the changes in the federal law and the federal rules, the decision by Prime Minister Chrétien to make a very significant change, which was carried through. It is notable, for example, that the proclamation of the date of that change was delayed so it would not negatively impact a leadership contest then under way in the Conservative Party of Canada. That was, again, an example of someone saying, “Let's recognize that we're not going to take advantage of this to simply punish a party which is now undergoing a political battle”.

I entered the contest for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada under a certain set of rules. Those rules were not made by me. They were not written by me. They had nothing to do with me in a sense. They were passed by the Parliament of Canada. I assumed those rules would apply to the leadership contest, which I was entering, for the full time of that contest.

I do not say this directly when I look at my friends, including my colleagues who are here from the Conservative Party and my friends from the New Democratic Party and the Bloc.

I became a candidate under legislation approved by the Parliament of Canada and very clear rules. The rules said that there was a $5,400 limit on individual contributions and that the contributions could be made up to 18 months after the convention. The law was very clear, unequivocal and transparent, and it was passed by the Parliament of the day.

To put it mildly, I and a number of other leadership candidates were shocked. It woke me up to how the new government plays the game of politics. In the middle of the period in which we were raising money for the leadership and engaged in the leadership race itself, the Conservatives changed the law in such a way that for the entire 18 month period after the convention we were no longer allowed to collect cheques of $5,400. We were only allowed to collect cheques of $1,100.

I want to tell everyone in this chamber and anyone else who wants to listen that there is no other interpretation that one can give to that unilateral change, joined in by the Bloc and approved and egged on by the New Democratic Party. There is no other way to interpret the timing of that law and the fact that it was not grandfathered for those who were participating in the leadership contest. There is no other way to interpret that law but as a deliberate attempt to undermine the credibility and integrity of the Liberal Party of Canada and to cause personal difficulty and embarrassment for each person who ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. It was a deliberate and flagrant attack on our political process in which we had all entered in terms of that race.

The member for Cambridge is laughing. Let him laugh because for him to change the rules in the middle of the game is just a laughing matter.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Gary Goodyear

You were taking money from kids, Bob.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

I will say to the hon. member that if we are on the other side, I hope we will not do what they have done to us. To change the contribution limits, when people ran campaigns on the assumption that financing would be possible, and then to change those rules and those limits in the middle of the game when we had all taken the personal risk that we take when we go into a leadership race, is simply disgraceful. I must confess that it has affected, for all time, my view of what the party opposite is really all about. I think I now understand what it is all about, what it is trying to do to us and what it is trying to do to the democratic process.

The Conservatives can shout down, heckle and comment any way they want but I will not be cowed nor bullied by them into not stating what I know to be the truth. The government opposite interfered in this process because it had a political agenda. That is what it is all about. There is no way that anyone in his or her right mind would support the government in any effort it makes with respect to the project that is now under way with Bill C-29 and the statements it is making about the current law with respect to Elections Canada.

The member opposite is not sitting in his chair and I am not sure he is allowed to heckle from anywhere in the House.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

If you're going to heckle--