Mr. Speaker, the NDP will vote yes.
House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2015, with 32% of the vote.
Canada Post Corporation Act October 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the NDP will vote yes.
Political Loans Accountability Act October 2nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party will vote yes.
Business of Supply October 2nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, we would like the vote on today's supply day motion to be deferred until tomorrow, Wednesday, October 3, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.
Business of Supply October 1st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe if you sought it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member for Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, October 2, 2012, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
Food Safety September 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, if the system is so effective, why was it the Americans who notified us of the contamination?
Yesterday, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency admitted that it still has no plan to improve measures to prevent such contamination. Canadians are worried and are losing faith in the government's ability to make sure our food is safe.
When will the Conservatives make public health a priority and stop cutting food inspection?
Food Safety September 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the E. coli outbreak began nearly a month ago, but the Conservatives only recently shut down the source of the bacteria. The Conservatives' pet self-regulation policies have failed. The extent of the contamination could have been even worse.
When will the government explain why there was such an unacceptably long delay, and when will it put a stop to its dangerous political experiments?
Political Loans Accountability Act September 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
It is very unfortunate that it has taken a year. We know how the Conservative Party does things. If they really wanted to make Bill C-21 a priority, they could easily have done it. Our party could have had discussions with them, as could all the other opposition parties, and we could have moved it forward and resolved this situation.
Political Loans Accountability Act September 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
It is very important that this principle be discussed. I am sorry the Conservative Party has decided to eliminate contributions or assistance for candidates. That is one way of reaching women. I am thinking of all our young people who took part in the last campaign. How can young people or women who have a career that is just starting out, and enormous student loans, also take on the job of an election campaign so they are able to put their ideas forward? That is what is unfortunate in this situation.
I would like to add, again, that I hope the Conservative Party, for once, will not impose the gag order or go in camera to discuss such an important issue.
Political Loans Accountability Act September 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I alluded to the possibility that candidates who apply for a loan from a bank might be refused simply because their political affiliations go against the banks' interests. That is what we hope to prevent. We want to ensure that candidates are respectful. We want to have the best possible candidates.
If the Conservative Party accepts our proposals, together, we could ensure that Canada has a truly open, transparent process that shows respect for individuals.
Political Loans Accountability Act September 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
Bill C-21, Political Loans Accountability Act, contains a series of measures to tighten the political financing rules. Among other things, the bill proposes to prohibit political entities from receiving corporate or union loans. Financial institutions, individuals, political parties and associations will still be authorized to grant or guarantee loans, as long as the terms of the loan, such as the interest rate, are divulged and everything is put down in writing.
As my colleague mentioned, Bill C-21 is a step in the right direction. The bill, to its credit, prevents situations like the one the Liberal Party currently finds itself in from happening again. Let us remember that, six years after the leadership race, many candidates still have not reimbursed the total amount of the loans they received to run their campaigns.
The issue even went before the Supreme Court of Ontario, which recently found the failed candidates with loans in arrears guilty of violating the Canada Elections Act. The court sentenced them to pay a fine of $1,000 or to serve three months in prison. It is important to note that, under Bill C-21, these loans that were not repaid would be considered political contributions after a period of three years.
In the report that he submitted to Parliament in 2007, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada said:
The loans granted by lenders—who are not in the business of lending, who lend money at non-commercial rates, with terms that are not available to others, or in cases where there is little prospect of reimbursement—may be perceived as a means to influence the political entity to which the funds are provided.
The Chief Electoral Officer highlighted a weakness in our election financing system: lenders might try to influence political entities. That weakness had to be remedied. We have a duty and a responsibility to do everything we can to limit the influence of outsiders over political entities in this country. Bill C-21 proposes a solution worthy of consideration, and that is why, as was noted earlier, we are going to support it at second reading.
Once it is sent to committee, we will be able to improve it. While Bill C-21 means we are taking a step in the right direction, it is still in need of improvement. Yes, we support it, and I hope the Conservative Party will also be open to our solutions. For example, limiting the number of potential lenders is a good idea in theory, but in practice, problems might arise.
Take the case of financial institutions. As the bill now stands, there is nothing that provides for establishing rules that can guarantee a degree of impartiality on the part of the banks in granting loans.
Bill C-21 contains nothing that could guarantee that this process is fair to all candidates, regardless of party. The minister himself said in the past that he did not see the benefit of making the banks subject to a regulatory framework under Bill C-21. That is quite surprising to hear from the minister, because if his objective is to make the process transparent and democratic, it would be to our benefit to see this kind of thing in the bill.
Without clear rules to guarantee that the lending process is fair, we can easily imagine that the banks might be, let us say, more inclined to lend to certain candidates than to others.
That is not to say that this would happen systematically, but the risk of a bank denying a candidate a loan for political reasons exists, and that should never be the case. It is important to address that issue. Without clear rules, we are opening the door to the possibility of a bank denying a loan to a political entity on the grounds that it advocates an agenda the bank considers to be against its interests.
For example, would a bank agree to lend to a political entity that was proposing higher taxes on its profits? Perhaps; it might. The risk of it refusing based on the ideas advocated by the entity in question is our justification for making amendments to the bill. That is exactly the situation that has to be avoided.
Mr. Speaker, you will tell us that the banks are already free to grant or deny a loan to whomever they see fit. Fine. But by limiting the number of entities that are entitled to make loans, Bill C-21 places more power in the hands of the financial institutions. That power must not have an impact on candidates’ ability to finance their campaigns. That would completely defeat the objectives and the intent of the bill.
I hope that the minister and his Conservative colleagues will agree to work with the official opposition to prevent Bill C-21 from creating two classes of candidates: those who have no trouble raising campaign funds because they advocate ideas that will help banks make money, and all the other candidates.
After introducing the bill, the Conservatives issued a news release stating their intent to implement high standards of integrity in the political process. That is all well and good, but the government must work with all parties to ensure that integrity in the political process is achieved.
If that is truly their intention, why did they recently condemn public funding of political parties, which had the advantage of avoiding and eliminating any possibility of allegiance or political scandal?
It seems to me that the best way to curb private money's influence in the political sphere is to remove private money from the equation. Unfortunately, that is not the approach the government chose.
The NDP believes that any action taken to ensure that political funding and loans are as transparent as possible is a very good thing.
That is why, as another colleague said, we will support Bill C-21 at second reading. I sincerely hope that the Conservatives will be open to the changes we propose in committee, even though that has not been our experience in the past, I must say. We all have an interest in guaranteeing the independence of the people's representatives in this country. It is our duty to be above reproach, and we must prevent politicians from using their influence to obtain favours.