John McCallum

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague regarding the commitment given by the Prime Minister in, I believe, 2010, almost two years ago, that he would give clarity to the Investment Canada Act and to the definition of the term “net benefit” for Canada.

That is a long time ago, and this is a really important issue. With all of his discussions with the Chinese and other governments, the Prime Minister must have seen something like this coming.

Could my colleague explain the irresponsibility of the Prime Minister in leaving this to the last minute when he has had almost two years to get the job done?

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I was not lending money. My lending limit when I was working for Royal Bank was always zero, so I was not a real banker. I was a chief economist and talked about stuff like that, but I do know a bit about the process.

It is obvious that a bank is a money-making institution. It does not lend money just out of the goodness of its heart. It only lends money when it is pretty sure it will get that money back with interest, so it looks very closely at the credit ratings of individuals in determining whether to lend and how much to lend.

We can be sure that if a candidate does not have the best credit history or perhaps does not have a high-paying job, then that person would have great difficulty getting a loan of any significant amount from a bank. However, that person could perhaps get a loan from colleagues or friends or family. I do not see what is wrong with that as long as that process is transparent and clear. That is the main difference between what we are saying and what the government is saying.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

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

We want these rules to be as transparent as possible. We agree with many items in the bill. The only thing we do not like, as I have said a number of times, is the exclusive authority for financial institutions to make loans. Yes, they can make loans, but others should also be able to do so. This is the biggest change that we would like to make in the bill, but obviously the government does not want to co-operate.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, individuals perhaps could lend money as long as their identities were made clear, as long as the amounts were made clear and as long as the interest rate was commercial.

For example, sometimes the family members of a candidate might want to lend some money. Maybe we are talking about an individual who does not necessarily have the world's greatest credit rating and might have trouble getting money from the bank in significant quantity. This person might have friends or associates who would be willing to lend him or her some money. As long as it was clear, transparent and at commercial interest rates that would fine and it would give greater flexibility to the system without any loss of transparency.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to be so terribly co-operative, one way he can get Liberal support is simply to deny the exclusive right of financial institutions to make these loans. It should be broadened. That is what I said in my speech.

If the minister thinks he is so co-operative, why does he not consider an amendment of that kind? Then he would have the Liberals on side. However, he is all keen to go in this one direction without any consideration for compromise or negotiation with us. I do not know why he thinks we should come on bended knee and support his bill for which he has absolutely no flexibility.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Liberal Party has been and is still extremely open to women, whether we are talking about women standing for election or becoming involved in other areas.

Our opposition to this bill, to giving the banks exclusive lending authority, is supportive of women. As I said in my speech, of course not all women are poor, but some women who stopped working in order to stay home and who are going back into the labour force may perhaps be less wealthy than some men are.

We are not saying that the banks cannot make loans; we are saying that the banks should not have the exclusive authority to make loans.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think I was very clear on this issue. I said that the Liberals were totally in favour of these transparency rules that aim at disclosing all funding. The only thing we do not like about this bill is that it gives financial institutions exclusive authority for granting loans. I explained our reasons, that it was worse for women and for those who were not as wealthy. This is why we are against it. I think I was clear about this, and I think this is a good reason not to support this bill.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-21 which, for reasons I will explain in a moment, the Liberals will oppose.

The bill does a number of things. It amends the Canada Elections Act in the following ways: All loans to political entities, including mandatory disclosure of terms and the identity of all lenders and loan guarantees, must be uniform and transparent. We are fine with that. Unions and corporations are prohibited from making loans to political parties, associations, or candidates. That is fine. Limiting the amount of loans and loan guarantees that individuals can make within the framework of the permitted individual annual contribution is also fine. Limiting the ability of financial institutions and political entities to make loans beyond the annual contribution limit for individuals and only at commercial rates of interest is the part we do not agree with. Finally, there are tighter rules for the treatment of unpaid loans to ensure candidates cannot walk away from unpaid loans.

The Liberal caucus certainly is in favour of full transparency and disclosure of political loans. We are also in favour of forcing those loans to bear commercial interest rates.

What is a problem for us is when the bill says that only financial institutions or banks will have the authority to make these loans.

Before entering politics, 12 years ago, I worked for the Royal Bank. So I am well aware of how banks work. In my view, it is not the banks that asked for this exclusive authority, but rather the government that wants to give it to them. This puts too much power into the hands of the banks. Basically, the banks would have the authority to make political choices by lending money to the candidate they like the most and by not giving a loan to a candidate they do not like. I am not saying that that is what they would do, but all the same, it gives excessive power to the financial institutions.

Furthermore, with these rules, the candidates with more money, the candidates who are wealthier, would have an advantage, because they would have a better credit rating than candidates who are not as wealthy. This kind of system would favour the rich rather than treating everyone fairly. The system might also be unfavourable to women, especially to those who are going back into the labour market after a number of years at home. They might be less able to borrow money from a bank because they would not have as much money.

For all of these reasons, the Liberals will be voting against this bill.

I want to emphasize that it is only the exclusive aspect of the banks being the only lenders that we object to. We are entirely in favour of total transparency, total disclosure, the requirement to pay commercial interest rates, and so on.

In closing, I would remind the House that the Prime Minister has not, to this day, disclosed any of the names of the people who contributed to his leadership campaign, let alone the sums involved, let alone whether he borrowed any money. I would say that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. I would suggest that as the government is moving forward with this law, now would be a good time for the Prime Minister to disclose at least the names of his donors, if not the amounts.

Perhaps during questions and comments one of the Conservatives could give their view on the proposition I just put forward.

[Aboriginal Affairs, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Jim Prentice, the government's former aboriginal affairs minister, has slammed the government for failing to perform its constitutional duty to consult with aboriginal people on the northern gateway pipeline.

Does the government understand that the Prime Minister does not make all the rules?

Will the government commit to consult and accommodate aboriginal peoples on issues like resource development, which impacts on their rights, or is the government simply saying that Jim Prentice is a liar?

[National Defence, September 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government has got the F-35 process totally backwards. The defence department was supposed to produce a statement of requirements first, that is, what Canada needs these planes to do. After that it should have been up to Public Works to launch a bidding process. Now that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is the real defence minister, will she review the statement of requirements and for the sake of both taxpayers and the defence of Canada finally launch a competitive, open bidding process?