Paul Crête

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2008]

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.

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2008]

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.

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2008]

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?

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2008]

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.

[Committees of the House, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his tenacity on this issue. I remember a few years ago the Bloc Québécois created the St. Lawrence Caucus. We went to the Gaspé region and met with people who spoke about this situation. My colleague's speech today reflects exactly what these people told us.

I would like to ask my colleague a quick question. Is one of the problems not that Fisheries and Oceans Canada has often taken a very vertical and bureaucratic approach? The department claims to be responsible for fisheries and it has noticed that stocks are diminishing. But it forgets that these wharves can have several uses and can help develop new types of fisheries, so new species can be fished.

In essence, is all of this not because the government sees no need for a land use policy? Our communities are producing very useful things. In big cities, people like to eat seafood products. Does the government's attitude not mean that small craft harbours get put aside? They were deemed to be useless, when in reality, this is not the case.

[Manufacturing and Forestry Industries, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, these numbers are from the minister and, every year, we have a surplus in the end. The government must try to stop spreading this misinformation.

Over the past five years, Quebec has lost approximately 150,000 manufacturing jobs, the majority since the Conservatives came to power. In 2007 alone, nearly 50,000 jobs were lost. The economic slowdown in the United States now extends to the service sector and Quebec's finance minister is even talking about a possible recession.

Will the Minister of Finance take the only responsible action in light of the deteriorating situation and put $3.5 billion towards an assistance plan for the manufacturing and forestry sectors, especially considering the $10.6 billion surplus expected this year?

[Manufacturing and Forestry Industries, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Tembec recorded a loss of $60 million in its first quarter and the Conservatives' tax cuts, which are lining the pockets of the oil and gas companies, will do nothing to help Tembec maintain its investments in research and development. Tembec's situation is a good illustration of the difficulties facing the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

Will the Minister of Finance finally realize that it takes more than tax cuts, that it takes other assistance measures such as a refundable tax credit for research and development, as called for by Tembec and the Forest Products Association of Canada?

[Human Resources and Social Development, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this government did not restore the amounts. We have been seeing cuts since 1994 and 1995. Several OECD studies have shown that investments in education are the most significant determinants of economic growth and technological innovation.

Will the Minister of Finance ever understand that paying down the debt quickly serves no purpose if it is to the detriment of funding for post-secondary education? Does he understand that in the upcoming budget he must increase transfers for education if he does not wish to mortgage our economic and social future? This is the way to address the current economic slowdown.

[Human Resources and Social Development, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to correct the fiscal imbalance, which he still has not done. Not only has the federal government failed to eliminate its spending power or turn over tax fields, but the transfers to Quebec and the provinces have still not been restored to the level of the 1994 and 1995 indexed amounts.

Does the Prime Minister intend to keep his promise and will he, in the next budget, finally increase transfers for post-secondary education to a total of $3.5 billion, restoring them to where they were before the cuts?

[February 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. It is a real storm that has hit the manufacturing and forestry industries in Canada, but particularly in Quebec and Ontario.

The problem is that the allocation among provinces is unacceptable. Although there are two provinces that are very affected, all the provinces will receive money. I have nothing against Prince Edward Island, but $99 per person, while Quebec will receive $22? That is completely unacceptable.

There are also agreements with provinces, which is interesting. But I will conclude by asking my colleague whether he will inform the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that he wrote to people in my riding, a week late, to say that we were voting on this at the same time as the budget.

He should have been aware of the situation and admitted that the Bloc Québécois succeeded in getting the government to act, and that it was better for everyone for the $1 billion to be available as quickly as possible.