Tim Uppal

[Fair Representation Act, December 12th, 2011]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[Fair Representation Act, December 9th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I have a few questions for the hon. member.

The member talked about numbers. Members have the numbers on how many seats will go to which provinces.

Where is the NDP plan? Where are the numbers? Why do the NDP members not talk about the number of seats they are proposing? I did not hear any numbers in her speech.

Does she realize that the NDP plan would require a constitutional change? Is the NDP proposing that we get into long drawn-out constitutional battles? I would like to know that from the member.

The member says she wants to talk about the bill more and have more consultation. We have debated the bill in the House quite a bit. I do not know if she realizes, but maybe she could make it clear, that we have a deadline coming up in February. If the member wants Canadians to have fair representation at the next voting opportunity, does she not think we should move forward and vote on the bill? We would ask the member to support the bill.

[Senate Reform, December 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want a say in who represents them in the Senate and we are providing an opportunity for Canadians to have a say in who represents them in the Senate. The Senate itself must change in order to reach its full potential as an accountable and democratic institution.

The Senate must come into a 21st century democracy. We are taking reasonable steps to reform the Senate with the Senate reform act and I encourage members opposite to do the same.

[Senate Reform, December 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this government received a strong mandate from Canadians to reform the Senate. The status quo in the Senate is unacceptable. Senators can serve terms of up to 45 years without a democratic mandate from Canadians. Canadians find that unacceptable. We ask the opposition to support this bill and change the Senate, and not support the status quo in the Senate.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with the member on this bill and having further discussion.

The fact is it is not only banks, but it is other financial institutions as well. Not just that, it is friends, family, supporters, the average Canadian who has the ability to make donations or to lend money, or even to guarantee money within the contribution limits.

Does the hon. member not think it is important to get out and engage Canadians and ask for that support? As members of Parliament, or as candidates, or as political parties, is it not important that we tell Canadians what we are about, tell them about our platform and ask for that support? Should we not ask them to be a part of the campaign and to donate money? It does not have to be $1,100. It could be $200, or it could be $50. It is a matter of engaging Canadians and getting more of them to contribute to a member's campaign either in donations, or loans, or as a guarantee. Is it not important to engage with as many Canadians as possible and to get that financial support so they are more engaged?

[Political Loans Accountability Act, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it has been good to work with the hon. member. We will have good discussions on this bill.

The member raised the point about how some people have a house that they could possibly get collateral on, but others may not. He then said maybe a relative could provide a loan. Where does it stop? Where would those guidelines be?

The fact is, we are trying to stop wealthy individuals who have the ability to provide a loan but then have no real expectation of repayment.

For some established political parties, there is a possibility that the individuals could get 60% back on their cost. However, there are other political parties which do not have a chance of getting anywhere in an election. What if one of those candidates were to borrow money under the member's plan and then just walk away from the loan? Where does it stop?

At the end of the day, we need to have rules and guidelines. The bill that we presented has accountability and it is transparent. It says that the maximum one could borrow is the amount one could contribute. Anything over that would be considered a contribution.

I ask the member, how would he solve that issue?

[Political Loans Accountability Act, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the fact is that we as the government made a commitment to Canadians that we would close a loophole in our political financing regime. We were the government that brought in the Federal Accountability Act that cleaned up the political financing regime in Canada. Now we are building upon that by closing this loophole.

The fact is that it is not only banks but also insurance companies, credit unions and other institutions that can provide these loans. Also, these loans can be provided by another electoral district association, by the party, or by family and friends.

This bill would actually level the playing field for all Canadians to get involved in politics. It would take the power away from wealthy individuals, corporations and unions.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question and insight into this issue.

Absolutely, the return for candidates who receive that level of voting, 60%, is some insurance to banks. However, at the end of the day, political parties can loan money to an electoral riding association or other EDAs can also loan money to another riding association. So, between political entities, loans can be made.

There is ample opportunity for Canadians to be a part of the political process where financing will not hinder them.

This bill would actually level the playing field and bring everybody down to the same level where corporations, big unions and wealthy individuals do not control the agenda. It is Canadians who have an opportunity to become part of the political process.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, it is up to the banks to make that decision on how they will make the loan or if they will make that loan. We as a government cannot tell a bank what criteria to look at when it makes a loan to many different types of candidates. It could be a nomination contestant. It could be a contestant in an election who has already been nominated by the party. It could be a leadership contestant, possibly the front-runner or possibly a person who has no chance of winning at all in the minds of the bank. This decision needs to be made by the individual bank.

It is not just banks. It is also insurers and credit unions. A number of official institutions would make those loans as long as they were open and transparent about the terms and conditions and who the guarantors would be for that loan. One's family, friends and other individuals can guarantee the loan to the maximum contribution limit.

The bill is about bringing more accountability and transparency to the entire political financing regime.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his support of the general principle of the legislation because it is important that we pass the bill and get it to committee. I would be happy to appear in front of committee to discuss the bill at that time as well.

In regard to his specific question, it is important that we limit the amount of the guarantee that can be given to a loan to the same amount as a contribution limit. The contribution limit in 2011 is $1,100. Anything more than that, especially if it is not paid back, would be deemed to be a larger contribution, essentially a de facto contribution. This is an important principle of the bill. I would be happy to discuss it further, but it is important that we limit it to the amount that anybody is able to make.