2012-09-28

Government Orders
Political Loans Accountability Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from December 8, 2011 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to political loans), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to resume debate on Bill C-21. I last spoke to this bill in December of last year. Unfortunately the time was not sufficient for me to complete my presentation, so I would like to continue, but before I do, I would like to point out a few elements of Bill C-21 that I spoke to in December. 
It is very important for all members to understand the reasons Bill C-21 has been introduced and some of the elements of the bill that will make the political loans regime a much more fair, open and transparent process for all parties and for all candidates.
Without question the rationale for Bill C-21 and its genesis came as a result of the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign. As most members know and most Canadians know, there were several candidates who contested the leadership for the Liberal Party in 2006 who still have outstanding debts, in some cases, several thousands of dollars of debt. In fact there is one sitting MP, the member for Vancouver Centre, who was a nominated candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party who has still yet to repay her debts. 
We believe that to be absolutely unacceptable. Bill C-21 would remedy that.
 I also want to point out that Bill C-21 will prevent individuals from lending money to leadership contestants. That is important because in the past there have been abuses of the loans regime. Let me give an illustration. Under the regime that we are currently working with, a wealthy individual, friend or relative could lend money to a leadership campaign candidate and have absolutely no realistic expectations of that loan ever being repaid. In fact, there could be times when an agreement would be struck between the lender and the candidate, and the lender would assure the candidate that he or she would never have to repay the loan because the lender would simply write it off.
If that happened, it would be a clear abuse of the political loans regime and a clear abuse of the rules. Yet there is nothing under the current Elections Act provisions to prevent that from happening. If that happened, the so-called loan would in fact not be a loan at all. It would be a donation. It would be a contribution and there are laws and rules in place to prevent contributions from exceeding a certain limit. In order to prevent that type of abuse from occurring, Bill C-21 will prohibit individuals from lending money to leadership candidates.
In future, after Bill C-21 is adopted, only registered financial institutions, whether they be chartered banks, credit unions, caisse populaires, trust companies, et cetera, will be allowed to lend money. In addition, those institutions, as is the normal practice, will have to openly transmit their practice of lending, the interest rate, the terms of repayment and all other information that should be in the public purview and in the public domain.
Bill C-21 will bring into force provisions that will increase accountability and transparency. Overall it will give the public the assurance that there are no abuses in the leadership or any candidate's campaign. I say that because Canadians have told us loud and clear that they do not agree from time to time with the regime of political donations exceeding the Federal Accountability Act levels. 
However, abuses have occurred. I think all of us here can point to at least one or two examples where abuses have occurred, and unfortunately, the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada are prevented from doing anything meaningful to stop them. Bill C-21 would do exactly that.
There are a few other provisions in Bill C-21 that are not only timely but would assist all candidates in a leadership contest from incurring these debts, or at least would assist them in the repayment of their debts.
We have read media reports recently where one of the candidates in the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign, Ms. Martha Hall Findlay, has stated that because of the current rules she has found it difficult if not outright impossible to repay her debt, which she still has six years after she ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party.
 Ms. Hall Findlay says the reason it is difficult to repay the debt is that under the current provisions donations from individuals to a leadership candidate may only be given on a per-contest basis. In other words, since Ms. Hall Findlay ran for the leadership in 2006, her supporters who wanted to give the maximum contribution allowable, roughly $2,100, could only do so once because the rules say a person can only give one donation to one candidate for one contest.
Bill C-21 would change that so that individuals could give contributions to a leadership contestant on an annual basis. In fact it would allow existing debts to be paid off by allowing the same contributor to donate yearly to the maximum amount. This would assist candidates like Ms. Hall Findlay and others who have existing debts to pay off their debts.
In fact, Ms. Hall Findlay has stated publicly that if the provisions of Bill C-21 were in force today, she would have her existing debt paid off in three days. I am not sure if that is an exaggeration or not, but we will see when Bill C-21 comes into effect how quickly Ms. Hall Findlay and other outstanding debtors pay off their debts.
Finally, in the limited time that I have, I want to refute a political argument, or at least a political piece of rhetoric, that has been coming from the Liberal Party lately. It suggests that our government has delayed bringing Bill C-21 forward because we want to let those leadership candidates from 2006 continue to twist in the wind. Nothing could be further from the truth.
 We have continually, over the last several months, asked the opposition parties to give their tacit approval to Bill C-21 so we could debate it, send it to committee, after which speedy passage would then ensue. Until two days ago, we had not had that agreement. However, on Wednesday of this week, after several months of trying to get agreement from the opposition parties, we finally got their commitment to allow Bill C-21 to go forward with their support.
That is why today we are hoping the debate will end and Bill C-21 will be voted upon at second reading to send it to committee. We want Bill C-21 to come into effect. I know all Canadians support it. Hopefully, the opposition parties will as well.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite gave a very good summary of the bill before us. 
As he knows, the NDP is supporting the bill at second reading, but I do have a couple of questions and they are real questions, actually.
 This whole issue of financing political loans and raising money gets very complex. I wonder whether he thinks there are any loopholes that, if this were to pass, could possibly give an out in some way that would allow someone to go through the back door. I think that is the way we have to look at the bill.
Also, in terms of the current situation, where there are candidates who did not win and are now in arrears under the Canada Elections Act and will possibly get fined, what would their status be pending this new bill? Would the new bill be retroactive in terms of these candidates who have outstanding loans that have now gone beyond the limit? What would their status be?
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question about loopholes, I would not want to suggest there are no loopholes. That is why bills have to be examined carefully at committee. 
However, there is something that the committee, during its examination of Bill C-21, should consider. As written, Bill C-21 states that if candidates at the local riding association level fail to repay any debts they incurred during their candidacy, the registered association or party would then be responsible for their debts. That is a good thing, so there cannot be any debts written off at the local level.
 Bill C-21, however, does not provide for any debts incurred by leadership candidates of a registered federal party to be backstopped by the federal party. In other words, if someone runs for the leadership of the Liberal Party, and we know that the Liberals will be entering a leadership campaign shortly, whoever wins that campaign is obviously going to incur some debt. All candidates do. If the candidate becomes leader of the Liberal Party and still has unpaid debt after several years, Bill C-21 does not allow, or does not oblige, the federal Liberal Party to pay that debt. It does at the local level but not for leadership candidates at the federal level.
We may want to examine that at committee to make the same provisions at the federal leadership level as we do at the candidate level.
With respect to whether it is retroactive, right now leadership candidates from 2006 in the Liberal campaign have this debt encumbrance. Bill C-21 would allow the new rules to come into effect for existing debt, but everything else would be on a go-forward basis. Bill C-21's provisions would only apply after it comes into effect, with the one exception being existing debt.
Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. We are pleased that this bill has finally been introduced in the House.
I would like to ask him a question about something he said at the end of his speech. He said that it is not true that the government delayed this bill. Yet the bill has been languishing for nearly a year since it was introduced. Why have the Conservatives not made more of an effort to consult the other parties over the past few weeks to get their support?
Why did this take so long?
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we have been trying for well over a year, since Bill C-21 was first introduced, to get agreement from both opposition parties. We had agreement from the official opposition for many months. It wanted Bill C-21 to go forward. 
The difficulty was trying to get agreement from the Liberal Party. I do not know the rationale behind why the Liberal Party did not want Bill C-21 to come forward for further debate but that is the reality. Finally, as I mentioned two days ago, the Liberals indicated to us that they would be willing to support Bill C-21 to at least send it to committee. 
We would have had Bill C-21 at committee many months ago if we had agreement from the opposition parties that they would support it. Even though we have a majority, the reason their support is necessary is that House time is very valuable and we do not want to introduce bills that will be delayed unnecessarily by filibusters, amendments and hoists, all of which are available technically and from a procedural standpoint to the opposition parties to delay passage of a bill. 
Rather than trying to delay House proceedings by introducing Bill C-21 when it would not get support from the opposition parties, we kept trying to negotiate behind the scenes with them, to ask them to let us know when they were finally ready to offer their support. We got that acceptance on Bill C-21 two days ago. It is introduced today. I fully expect debate to conclude today, which means we will probably be voting at second reading next week.
We want Bill C-21 to be passed. We have wanted it since we introduced it. Now that we finally have support from the opposition parties it will go forward.
Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a very good speech and provided an explanation of the bill as well.
It is great to have this co-operation with the opposition on moving this bill forward. We would like to see this co-operation on other bills, including the Senate reform bill. We would like that bill to move forward as well.
We cannot blame Canadians for having a perceived sense of undue influence on politicians if they see unions, wealthy individuals or corporations lending money and that money never really being paid back. It is essentially an abuse of a loophole.
 How does the member see this bill building and ensuring trust in our democratic institutions?
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the minister responsible for democratic reform, not only for the question but for his leadership on this file and for introducing Bill C-21 to begin with.
He has asked a very good question. I think I referenced in my speech that Canadians have many concerns regarding the entire political process. Some Canadians feel there are too many loopholes which allow politicians from all sides of the House an opportunity to abuse existing rules when it comes to political financing and political loans.
This bill goes a long way to giving the general public the needed assurance with respect to financial transactions when dealing with leadership campaigns that contribution limits, et cetera, will be adhered to, because Bill C-21 does close a number of loopholes. I mentioned the most obvious. Bill C-21 will prevent individuals from lending money to candidates. That has been the biggest source of abuse that we have seen.
In past leadership campaigns, in opposition parties in particular, we have seen a steady pattern of wealthy individuals lending several thousands, and in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars to a leadership candidate with no obligation for the candidate to repay the loan.
I say “loan” very suspiciously because if there was an agreement at any time between a candidate and a lender, where the lender said, “I will give you $100,000 for your leadership campaign and don't worry, brother, you'll never have to repay it, because I'll simply write it off”, it would not be a loan; it would be a contribution. That would seriously violate the current election financing and Elections Canada laws with respect to contributions to candidates.
We want to see that potential abuse stopped. Bill C-21 does exactly that. It closes the loopholes that have existed for far too long.
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, since I am opening the debate today for my party, I would like to provide some background for the people who are watching us. There must be quite a lot of them this Friday morning.
 In 2006, during the Liberal Party of Canada leadership race, some of the candidates took out campaign loans that they have never been able to repay in full. In so doing, they violated the Canada Elections Act. 
 The public will understand that those unpaid debts represent, in a sense, illegal loans. The money was used. So it represents an unfair advantage, even if the candidates were defeated or withdrew from the race. 
 In an election campaign, every penny counts. Everything is recorded, measured and filed. That is the surest way to be certain the electoral process is absolutely transparent and is not usurped by elements that have too great a vested interest or are too wealthy. 
 We can see this in a number of other countries in the world: money and power often coincide and sometimes are simply indistinguishable. Plutocracy, mafia states, tax havens and the rest are more the rule than the exception. When Canadians find themselves looking at governments like those, they shrug their shoulders and dream of Westminster parliamentarianism, as unshakable and incorruptible as the Rock of Gibraltar.
 We have confidence in our democracy. Just as well, because the world is already dark enough. 
 Bill C-21 is one more step we are taking to make sure our system continues to be incorruptible and reliable.
 Certainly, in the case of the four unsuccessful candidates for the Liberal leadership, none of it has anything to do with the forces of darkness. It is simply a case of biting off more than they could chew. The candidates borrowed more than they could repay. 
 When it came time to clamp down on those abuses, no one really knew what to do. I note that these events date from 2006. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. There have been two leaders, who have seen their party’s fortunes decline with each election. The Liberal Party has found itself, little by little, packed into the back of the House.
 There is still no resolution in sight.
 Recently, the Ontario Superior Court delivered a judgment convicting the four individuals at fault. The judgment says there was a violation of the Canada Elections Act, and the guilty parties have to pay a fine of $1,000 or serve a custodial sentence of three months.
 I want to say immediately that I have some reservations about the seriousness of the crime, because we do have to be honest with the public, who may not have followed the case closely. The embarrassment these four candidates have experienced has been widely exploited by the Conservative Party in its never-ending war of blind hatred for the Liberal Party.
 The debts of these four candidates would have been repaid long since if the rules had not been tightened just at the right time by the government, which for once demonstrated Machiavellian skill. What a surprise. Ordinarily, its big, finely orchestrated schemes are about as airtight as a Zeppelin on fire.
 Political game-playing has therefore played a big role in dragging this situation out beyond all reason. Officially, Bill C-21 is an attempt to prevent abuses like this from happening again, but let us be frank: everyone was very happy to be able to heap scorn on the guilty parties for as long as possible. 
 Personally, I find that cruel and stupid. But in politics, it is all a game of tug-of-war. Everyone loves a good fight. Leave your flank exposed and you will be knifed. These malicious rules are so widely accepted that even the victim applauds. 
 It is malicious, but apparently we must accept it and make the best of it.
 Fine. And so I have the honour of announcing a first. I rise today to support the government’s bill. Surprise.
 I hold no illusions as to the motives that have prompted the Conservatives to tighten the party financing rules, nor do I believe that this is a particularly brilliant effort at legislating, but what can you do? It is a sort of a step in the right direction.
 If my enthusiasm seems a little lukewarm, it is because I see all too well the childish political games hiding behind this bill. This is the fifth attempt the Conservative government has made since it came to power to reform party financing. It has dragged the process out long enough to entrench the offence and prevent it from being resolved.
The Chief Electoral Officer has said that any offence under the Canada Elections Act relating to financing is very difficult to punish properly. Today, we are seeing that ourselves for the umpteenth time. It all dates back to 2006, before the Conservatives came to power. The Chief Electoral Officer has even told me, and it is very clear, that the law as it is now written is “not only overly complex, it’s incoherent and ineffective”.
 And we have the evidence of that as well. Eight years later, nothing has been done. The Chief Electoral Officer has repeatedly asked Parliament to resolve the many problems associated with the law regarding loans. 
 As my colleague the parliamentary secretary said just now, one of the biggest changes proposed in Bill C-21 would amend the limit on donations by individuals during leadership races. At present, because of the way the system is designed, people may contribute only once per leadership race. Under the proposed changes, those limits would apply on an annual basis. 
 These are probably the changes that will help the people who still have debts at present the most.
 Again, as my colleague said earlier, Ms. Findlay, who took part in the Liberal leadership convention, has even said that under the new changes proposed by Bill C-21, she would be able to pay off her campaign debt in three days. That would in fact be surprising, given that it has been several years since those loans were taken out.
 We believe it is important to make changes to this act, because everyone is calling for them. We know it is badly designed, it is badly formulated, and it generates a host of problems when it comes to political financing.
 The Conservative Party can feign indignation at the Chief Electoral Officer if it likes and call for the act to be enforced, but everyone knows that at the end of the day, they are very happy to be able to torture the four guilty parties and use that back door to strip their old adversaries of all possible merit while they are down.
 We believe it is very important for these changes to be made as quickly as possible and for the little political games to end. There is a lot of talk about that leadership convention in particular, because the debts incurred are still enormous. But still, they are not the only ones. We are talking about 80 candidates, 21 of them Conservatives, who still have debts they have not paid off because the law was too badly designed. The law regarding political loans really has to be changed. 
 There are several points in Bill C-21 that need to be examined. We in the NDP have decided to support the bill so it can be sent to committee, so we can look at each of those points properly, and so we can go ahead and make changes that are not just desirable, but absolutely necessary, because as it now stands, this act is not satisfactory. That is why I recommend that our party support this bill at second reading.
Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague for her excellent speech. I listened very closely to her speech and noted the current weakness that exists in the Canada Elections Act. We have been saying for quite some time now that good electoral legislation translates into a healthy democracy. And funding is the very basis of democracy. Basically, if some people have certain economic advantages, that can undermine a healthy democracy.
That is why I would like to ask my distinguished colleague for her views on the future of the Canada Elections Act. As she mentioned, this bill is merely a first step. Should we not have a complete overhaul of the Canada Elections Act, in order to ensure a strong, fair democracy?
[Interjection]
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Drummond for the question. He is a great MP who works very hard.
As for his question, he really seems to understand how important these changes are. It is absolutely crucial in our society to have electoral legislation that will ensure a healthy, vibrant democracy that people can believe in. I think changes really need to be made.
So far today, our discussion on the Canada Elections Act has focused primarily on political loans, but there are many other things that need to be looked at and changed in order to ensure a healthier and more vibrant democracy.
Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the co-operation we have had to move the bill along to the committee stage where all parties will be able to work on it. This is a great step. I would ask if we could have the same type of co-operation on other bills. It would be very constructive.
Is the hon. member willing to offer the same co-operation on the Senate reform bill, Bill C-7? Let us at least move it from this place into committee. We could discuss the bill and work on it there. Could we have that commitment on other bills?
[Interjection]
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for the question. I will start by saying that the NDP's philosophy is to always work together. Our goal is to examine every bill introduced, and to say that we will work together to make the bill the best it can be. Unfortunately, this is sometimes not possible because the bills have fundamental flaws that prevent us from even studying them in committee. There are some things that we simply cannot get behind. 
As for Senate reform, before seeking our approval, the Conservatives must secure the approval of their own caucus and their Senate caucus. It would perhaps be a good thing to do before trying to secure our approval.
The minister is probably aware that the proposed reforms are problematic for us. As things stand, he should perhaps look to his caucus before asking for our support.
Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate all members present. It is wonderful to see this kind of agreement and this kind of constructive exchange, which we always strive for. I also appreciate my colleague's clarity with respect to the question from our colleague opposite. 
Naturally, this is a step in the right direction. Does she think that more can be done to engage people who are less involved in these races and to obtain better representation of women, for example?
[Interjection]
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, who is an excellent colleague and excellent benchmate.
Indeed, several things could be done. Take, for example, the NDP leadership race that was held this year. We set a rather low limit to be able to run for leader, which meant that we had some very interesting candidates, such as our colleague from Manitoba and some of our younger colleagues, as well as more women and people who normally would never have been able to participate in such a race, in the manner in which politics is usually done.
Some slightly different rules meant that the candidates were much more varied. It is really important to put democracy and politics back in the hands of the people and not just in the hands of those who have money, who already have a lot of power and who buy more power with these loans and this money.
Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I remember 2006. Back then, I was not yet a Canadian citizen. I had been in Canada for a few years, but I had not yet applied for citizenship. I was very attached to my Chilean citizenship. However, I was so shocked by the sponsorship scandal that I wondered how such things could happen here. So I became a citizen, and since I have always been involved in politics, I got involved again. 
How does my colleague think this bill can be improved? What suggestions will the NDP be making to improve the bill and ensure that Canada and our democracy remain a model for other countries on this continent and for democracy in general?
[Interjection]
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I feel that Bill C-21 is a step in the right direction if we want to achieve that goal. Thanks to good laws already in place, such as the Elections Canada Act, money matters less in our democracy than it does in other countries.
I think that we can take more steps in that direction to create one of the most user-friendly democracies in the world, a democracy meant for people, not for members of a select group that grease their own palms and hand out taxpayers' dollars to their friends.
I think that there are many ways to improve our democracy, and Bill C-21 is one of them.
Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): 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.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on her beautiful speech on this issue. The word “beautiful” is probably not the right adjective; it was, in fact, very enlightening.
Here is my understanding of the bill. Despite my colleagues' best intentions—and I may seem like a bit of a party pooper, here—does this not seem like a bit of a shift, which, I think, is clearly in their own best interest, tailored to suit their own way of doing things?
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: 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.
Paulina Ayala: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help thinking that, by changing the rules on political party financing, we are opening the door to private donations.
As everyone can see here today, the NDP has many women and many young people in its caucus. I myself would not have been able to get a loan. I was a substitute teacher. We will not have any diversity in Parliament if we create such strict requirements and favour certain groups. Thus, I see a link between the political party financing that was eliminated and campaign financing. 
I wonder if my colleague could expand on that a little more.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: 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.
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hull—Aylmer for her speech. She is a very brilliant woman who understands the issues perfectly. It is terrific to be able to work with her. 
What does she think about the fact that the bill was introduced over a year ago and seems to have fallen into some sort of limbo? We heard no more about it. The Conservatives have tried to ram through a whole pile of other bills any which way, and now they tell us they were simply waiting for everyone to agree. 
I would like my colleague to comment on that, and tell us what she thinks about the very long time it took for Bill C-21 to come up for debate.
[Interjection]
Nycole Turmel: 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Before acknowledging the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, I must inform her that I will have to interrupt her at 11:00 a.m., when it is time for statements by members.
The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-21. I will start by saying that we will support this bill at second reading. I know it is rare for us to support a bill, but it is also rare for us to be able to examine an individual bill that is not part of a big omnibus bill. I ask the Conservatives to take that into consideration.
This bill prohibits corporations and businesses from granting loans to political entities. “Political entities” refers to political parties, associations, leadership candidates or candidates for nomination. Furthermore, this bill sets a time limit for paying back loans taken out by political entities: three years for leadership candidates, four months for a leadership candidate and three years for an association or party.
It is important to set limits on repaying loans. Otherwise, debts could accumulate indefinitely. Moreover, there is typically interest on these loans, which can be very detrimental to someone who, after running for leader or for election, will unfortunately have a lot of debt for a very long time.
Political parties will be responsible for paying back loans that are not paid back by the candidates themselves. Obviously, it is important for the financial institutions granting these loans to know that someone will be responsible for paying them back.
Another measure that I find very interesting is the measure that will enable leadership candidates to receive gifts up to a maximum amount per year instead of an amount per campaign. If someone is still in debt two years after the leadership campaign and has already asked all of his contacts, friends, family members and supporters to make a maximum donation, he is in trouble because those people cannot give the maximum amount again, which limits candidates' ability to raise funds to pay back loans within the deadline. This is a very interesting measure. I congratulate the government for having thought about this problem and for putting this measure in Bill C-21.
It is very important for us, as parliamentarians, to try to find solutions to the problem of debt incurred by candidates during elections or leadership races. These people end up with huge amounts of debt that they are unable to repay. We know that some of the candidates in our own leadership race still have a little bit of debt. There are also candidates in the leadership races of other parties who unfortunately still have a great deal of debt.
This measure is important for someone who will stand for election because they will know the consequences of ringing up that amount of debt. If they know that they have three years to repay the money, they may think twice about how much money they are going to spend and if they are capable of paying it back. This will also make people who stand for election more accountable.
In 2007, the Chief Electoral Officer released a report on political financing, which contained a number of recommendations. The changes proposed by the Chief Electoral Officer were intended to limit the influence of individuals and corporations on political entities, an influence that can be exercised through financing. Bill C-21 takes these recommendations into account. Once again, I congratulate the government for responding to the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations. We know that quite often the government does not follow through with recommendations made by various stakeholders.
The changes proposed by Bill C-21 seek to eliminate the influence by the more well-to-do in the political world. If a lobby, corporation or individual with a lot of money can provide a loan to a candidate, the latter may be influenced by the ideas of the group, corporation or individual.
For example, if a group campaigns for a certain cause, the person may feel obligated to advance that cause in particular. I think that it is extremely important to bring back this aspect of democracy and to limit this type of individual or corporate loan. It would be extremely unfair if this could happen. It is thus extremely important that we take action, that we support these measures and that we limit financiers' influence on politics.
As we know, there are groups that may have really good ideas or policies, but they may not be able to provide a loan because of financial difficulties. It is thus important to be able to level the playing field so that people cannot say that certain groups with more money will be listened to but it is tough luck for everyone else.
I am also calling on the government to assess the point that my colleague mentioned in her speech. Some financial institutions may be more inclined than others to give parties loans. This is a cause for concern. I understand that financial institutions are supposed to act in an impartial and non-partisan manner, but one never knows. I think that it is this government's duty to assess the issue in committee in order to determine if there is a way to prevent this phenomenon.
I would like to once again applaud the measures put forward. However, I would just like to point out the fact that it is somewhat contradictory to promote these measures that will improve transparency by trying to limit candidates' debt and yet, at the same time, be prepared to limit the amount of money that political parties receive for each vote.
I see that my time is up. We will certainly be able to get back to this issue later on, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville will have two and a half minutes when the House resumes debate on this motion.
The House will now proceed to statements by members. The hon. member for Oshawa.

Statements By Members
R.S. McLaughlin Collegiate and Vocational InstituteMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 50th anniversary of my former high school, R.S. McLaughlin Collegiate and Vocational Institute.
In September 1962, the doors to R.S. McLaughlin officially opened. Since that time it has been providing the youth in Oshawa with an excellent education and a wonderful experience that will serve them well into the future. I know it did for me. Little did I know when I was in our school musicals singing and dancing, how well it would serve me right here on Parliament Hill, where politicians are notorious for singing and dancing around the questions and the issues.
In all seriousness, through its teachers and faculty members, R.S. McLaughlin instilled the importance of leadership, hard work, community, and co-operation in its students. It is no mistake that Oshawa's current mayor John Henry, and MPP Jerry Ouellette, are also former students of McLaughlin. 
I would like to take this opportunity to thank McLaughlin and all its former and current teachers for the quality education it has been providing in Oshawa over the past 50 years.
Ville Saint-Pierre Knights of ColumbusMs. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to draw to the attention of the House the 60th anniversary of the Knights of Columbus Council 3567 of Ville Saint-Pierre, which was established on October 24, 1952, and works in one of the poorest parts of my riding.
The Knights of Columbus organize many fundraising activities and distribute the proceeds to people in need. It seems the government could not care less about its responsibility to ensure that everyone can live decently, so it is up to community groups to pick up the slack.
I am lucky to have two Knights of Columbus councils in my riding, as well as many other organizations that help improve the lives of my constituents every day.
I would like to salute André Simoneau, Grand Knight of the Council, for working so hard to make Ville Saint-Pierre a place we can be proud of.
I would also like to mention Council 1776 of Lachine, which does so much to improve our borough.
I would like to thank all of the Knights. The good work they do for our communities is essential.
Winnipeg Blue Girls' Soccer TeamMrs. Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge some exceptional female athletes from Winnipeg who recently joined together to support a very special cause. The Winnipeg Blue girls' soccer team made up of elite athletes from different Winnipeg soccer clubs won silver at the Manitoba Summer Games.
What is most exceptional about these girls is that while competing together, they learned that one of the moms, Monique Ditter, had just been diagnosed with breast cancer. Monique is their teammate Jazi's mom and their coach Jaret's wife. She is also my good friend. Even though the players originally came from rival clubs, they banded together to show their support for Monique by playing their soccer games sporting pink hair, pink shoelaces, and pink arm bands.
The girls, aged 10 to 12, also signed up for this Sunday's CIBC Run for the Cure, and have raised more than $4,000.
I ask the House to join me in applauding the care and compassion shown by these young girls, as well as their sportsmanship and camaraderie. Let them be our inspiration to go out and join the CIBC Run for the Cure this Sunday across the country.
All-night Arts FestivalHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 2002, Paris organized the first Nuit Blanche, an all-night celebration of visual arts in all forms.
Ten years on, BRAVO-Est organized the first Nuit Blanche in the nation's capital. BRAVO, the Bureau des regroupements des artistes visuels de l'Ontario, its executive director, Yves Larocque, and their entire team, including many volunteers, put on a hugely successful event during the night of September 22 to 23.
During the event, which took place primarily in the Hintonburg and Lowertown neighbourhoods, some 150 artists presented a wide range of artistic gems in over 100 locations. From sculpture to dance, and photography to steamroller printing, Ottawa's entire artistic community was showcased until the wee hours of the morning. 
And art lovers did not disappoint. They came out in droves—many more than expected—with infectious enthusiasm. As I said at the launch of this hugely successful event, way to go, BRAVO!
Momentum ChoirMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that this coming Monday, October 1, the Momentum Choir will be performing right here in Centre Block.
Momentum Choir rehearses every week in St. Catharines and lets persons with disabilities have an authentic musical experience. Under the leadership of conductor Mendelt Hoekstra, their performances show audiences that they are persons with remarkable musical abilities. 
Momentum provides these inspirational artists with the opportunity to develop their musical talents. I am pleased to say that they have been given the chance to demonstrate those talents right here in Parliament. I invite all of my hon. colleagues to walk down the hall and witness, on Monday at noon in the rotunda, what Momentum Choir can do.
Their performances are always moving, and the choir gives these talented artists the chance to belong, believe, and inspire. These young people are gathering momentum across the country. With over 70,000 followers on Facebook, they have become Canada's number one choir.
Montreal Green RallyPierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, the NDP has always believed that it is crucial to develop modern alternatives for a greener automobile industry in Canada. I am proud to draw your attention to an event that will make a difference.
This Sunday, September 30, the sixth annual Montreal Green Rally will hold the world championship of the Alternative Energies Cup in Boucherville. This is not surprising considering that Boucherville has the largest test program for electric cars in Canada in partnership with Hydro-Québec, business people and corporations working in the electric car industry, such as Bathium Canada and TM4, streets named Volta and Ampère, and its Agenda 21 for sustainable development. Boucherville can be proud to call itself the electric car capital of Canada.
Welcome to Boucherville and enjoy the Green Rally.
AboutFaceMr. Chris Alexander (Ajax—Pickering, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today I rise to draw attention to an inspiring organization named AboutFace. AboutFace is Canada's only national charity that reaches out to an estimated 1.5 million Canadians who live with facial differences.
On September 15, I was fortunate to attend an AboutFace fundraising event to learn about an array of programs and services that empower and engage affected youth, young adults, and their parents.
In addition to providing emotional support and educational programs, AboutFace launched the Access to Care program, a national initiative that helps individuals find the support they need and provides financial assistance especially for dental services.
AboutFace is also leading the embracing differences initiative, which teaches high school students to detect and stop bullying.
Given that the second highest birth defect rate in Canada is that of facial differences, accounting for 10,000 newborns a year, I call upon all of my colleagues to join me in applauding the leadership, advocacy, and compassion of the AboutFace organization.
Criminal CodeMr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced my private member's Bill C-444, which would add a clear and concise sentencing provision to Section 130 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the personation of peace officers and public officers. My bill would establish that personating an officer be considered by a court to be an aggravating circumstance when a criminal offence is committed.
When citizens see a police uniform, they instinctively trust the authority that comes with it. Personating a police officer is a serious breach of the public's trust and it has the same effect as using a weapon. It forces a victim to submit. We must preserve the inherent trust we have for our officers by delivering harsher penalties to offenders who breach this trust to cause harm.
I had introduced a similar bill during the previous Parliament and received support from all parties. I am hopeful that members of this 41st Parliament will also see the merit in this important amendment.
Innovative Projects in HochelagaMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to sing the praises of two of Hochelaga's innovative projects. 
The drivers and guides of Vélopousse help people discover the neighbourhood by taking them on a rickshaw ride. It is environmentally friendly, original, educational and fun. It provides summer employment for students in the neighbourhood and it costs only $5.
The second project is called Ateliers Bon Débarras. For the past four years, it has been helping young people 16 and 17 years old to integrate into society by teaching them to build furniture using recycled products. 
Congratulations to those responsible and to the participants of these two extremely successful projects.
Finally, allow me to congratulate my son Nicholas and his team from Concordia University in Montreal, who made it to the final round of the Canadian Satellite Design Challenge. Right now, experts are testing their satellite and, if it is declared the winner, then Concordia will be the first Quebec university to launch a satellite into orbit. Go Space Concordia! 
Hockey Summit Series AnniversaryMr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it was 40 years ago that Canadians from coast to coast to coast gathered around their televisions to watch the most significant international hockey tournament ever. It was not just a battle of two of the world's best teams, it was a battle of cultures and an unprecedented look behind the Iron Curtain.
Before Crosby scored in Vancouver, and Lemieux scored in the Canada Cup, it was Foster Hewitt's call of “Henderson scores” that defined Canada as a hockey superpower. It is the single most important goal in Canadian history. Today marks the 40th anniversary of that goal.
Paul Henderson will be etched forever in history as a great Canadian hero. Today, my colleagues and I celebrate and congratulate him and all of his Team Canada alumni as they mark this anniversary.
Summer DroughtMr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to talk about the federal government's lack of action when it comes to the drought. In my riding, as a result of the historic drought this summer, hundreds of animals were sent to slaughter, the cornfields were transformed into dust fields and the hopes of young farmers turned into despair. The burden is heavy on farmers in the Pontiac, since they have to buy food for the coming winter and additional seed for the spring.
I stand here in solidarity with the farmers of the Pontiac. 
I would like to underline the importance of the farming industry to the economy and to daily lives. I ask the government, how come farmers need to get into massive debt to ensure their livelihood? How come they have to sell part of their assets to make a living? Why is it that they cannot have access to new land at reasonable costs and interest rates? Why do they have to wait until the end of the fiscal year to get some relief from the government?
Normally, harvest season is a time of celebration and abundance, but this year, fall will be synonymous with restraint, debt and, for some families, poverty. Nevertheless, I want to thank them for putting bread on our tables.
Canadian Breast Cancer FoundationMs. Kellie Leitch (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about a very important issue that affects thousands of Canadian women across the country. Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer found in Canadian women. Over tens of thousands of them are diagnosed and treated every year in the country.
Many of us are touched by this devastating disease. My mother, Lynne Leitch, lost her battle in 1989. I was 18, my siblings 13 and 8. My mom was always there to make sure that we were supported and also on occasion to tell us when we were not so great. My mother is the reason why I support the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation so profoundly. As a medical physician, I know the fabulous work it does every day to make sure that women across the country are supported.
This week, in my riding of Simcoe--Grey, and in communities across the country, CBCF is hosting the annual Run for the Cure. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the hundreds of thousands of volunteers who go out and support this event. They truly are making a difference.
As October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I stand proud to support the CBCF and ask my colleagues to run for the cure this weekend, to support their neighbours and all those women who suffer from breast cancer every day.
Hockey Summit Series AnniversaryMr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago this afternoon, city streets across our country were empty as hockey fans flocked to their nearest television to watch the last game of the '72 Canada Soviet series. 
It had been a brutal, gruelling seven games. Senator Frank Mahovlich had already done Canada proud with a goal and a pair of assists. Spectacular saves by Ken Dryden in game 8 kept Canada close, but still trailing by two. Then it happened. Paul Henderson, who had scored the winner in game 6 and then again in game 7, was itching to go. With less than a minute left in game 8 he stepped onto the ice and into the history and heart of a nation. 
If members know this part they can say it with me, “Here's a shot. Henderson made a wild stab for it and fell. Here's another shot! Right in front. They score! Henderson has scored for Canada!”
Sylvia FedorukMr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to mark the passing of Saskatchewan's first female lieutenant-governor. Sylvia Fedoruk passed away on Wednesday evening at the age of 85. She faithfully represented the Queen from 1988 to 1994. As the first female lieutenant of Saskatchewan, she was an inspiration for many young women.
She gained prominence in 1951 as the only woman on the four person team that developed the cobalt 60 cancer therapy unit. Sylvia then went on to be the chancellor of the University of Saskatchewan. 
She was active in Huskies athletics, played net one year for the women's hockey team and was co-captain of the women's basketball team. In 1961, she was a member of the Joyce McKee curling team that won the Canadian women's curling championship. Later she was inducted into the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame.
In 1987 Sylvia was named as an Officer of the Order of Canada.
Sylvia Fedoruk truly embodied the spirit of Saskatchewan and should be an inspiration to all of us.
I thank Sylvia for her service to the people of Saskatchewan. May she rest in peace. 
Status of WomenMs. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it has really been quite a week for the Conservatives. Eighty-six Conservative MPs, including ten cabinet ministers, voted to take away a woman's right to choose. The Minister for the Status of Women said two years ago that she did not want to reopen the abortion debate, then she voted to do the opposite.
Listen to the comments the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca made to his local radio show. They reported that he said the code surrounding abortion in Canada is on par with North Korea human rights abuses. To quote, “We're exactly at the same place as North Korea, China, and Vietnam”. 
It gets worse. Yesterday, when I asked a question about the Conservatives inviting white supremacists to committee, the Minister of State for Science and Technology started defending this group, shouting “free speech”. 
Here is what makes the Conservatives uncomfortable: the NDP is in favour of women's right to choose and we do not like white supremacists. 
TaxationMr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as Canadians begin to prepare for Thanksgiving weekend, the last thing they want to think about is higher prices on the supplies and services they will need. 
The NDP carbon tax would raise the price on essentials that all Canadian families need. This tax would be greatly noticed over the holidays as families come together, prepare meals and spend time with one another.
University students driving home to see their families do not want to see higher prices at the pumps because of the NDP's sneaky tax schemes. Hard-working parents do not want to see the cost of fruits and vegetables skyrocketing because of the opposition leader's reckless and regressive carbon tax.
While our government continues to keep taxes low and help hard-working families keep more of their own money in their own pockets, will the NDP members stand up today and explain why they want hard-working families from sea to sea to be burdened with higher taxes over Thanksgiving?

Oral Questions
HealthLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are rightly concerned about the future of their health care system. The Conservatives unilaterally cut $36 billion in health transfers without any consultation whatsoever. In yesterday's report, the PBO stated the federal government has transferred the problem of future health care costs to the provinces. This de-funding will only hurt health services across Canada.
Why is the government lagging in its funding of health care, and why is it damaging the fiscal capacity of the provinces?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, that statement is completely false. There is no cut. We are still dealing with increasing the health care transfer. We are a responsible government. We want to ensure we will be able to do the transfer in a sustainable way. 
We understand from the actions the NDP is taking, that its members do not have any idea about the health care plan. They have no idea of what they are doing on this.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, we launched a major national campaign yesterday on health care, so we definitely do have a vision and want to talk to Canadians.
On September 3, a shipment of beef trim from XL Foods tested positive for E. coli. On September 13, XL's U.S. permit was pulled. Late yesterday, September 27, the XL plant in Brooks, Alberta had its licence suspended. This is almost a full month's delay from the discovery of the contamination to closure of the source. Why did it take so long for officials to act? Why is the government not putting the health and safety of Canadians first?
Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we do. Canadian consumers are always our first priority when it comes to food safety. Our government will continue to ensure food safety officials have the resources they need and respond efficiently based on sound science to ensure the safety of food. We have hired an additional 700 inspectors since 2006, including 170 dedicated to meat lines. Of course, the NDP members constantly vote against those initiatives.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, it is a failed policy. Yesterday's press release from the CFIA states, “To date, the company has not adequately implemented agreed upon corrective actions and has not presented acceptable plans to address longer-term issues”.
It is a clear indication that the Conservative policy of a self-policing industry has failed. It has put XL workers out of work, it has failed public safety and it has hurt the industry overall. 
Pulling front-line CFIA inspectors was wrong. When will the Conservatives reverse this policy?
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, we have added inspectors to the line and given the CFIA the capacity, from a monetary perspective, to do its job in a more fulsome way. 
Canadians can count on the fact that this government is focused on food safety. To that end, the industry the member is talking about had the help of 46 inspection staff on a daily basis in that plant. We will continue to work on scientific protocols that are internationally recognized to ensure our food is safe for Canadian consumers.
Nycole Turmel: 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?
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, the timeline actually backstops the fact that our system does work. There is no endemic situation out there from E. coli. E. coli exists across the country on a daily basis. Having said that, this government is focused on food safety. We want to go beyond what consumers expect. We have done that by constantly reinforcing what the CFIA needs in the form of more inspection staff and more dollars to get the job done. 
We will continue to focus on food safety. I wish the NDP members would help us do that by voting for our initiatives.
Nycole Turmel: 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?
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, there are no such cuts. In the last budget we put another $100 million into the CFIA to give it the capacity to ensure that Canadian consumers can enjoy safe food on a daily basis. Of course, the NDP voted against that initiative.
We continue to build the capacity of the CFIA to get the job done on behalf of Canadian consumers.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the XL Foods contamination problem continues. The whole plant is now shut down. The company fell short of proper standards way back in August and the government's inspection system failed to be on top of it then. That is partly because government inspectors do not actually inspect much any more. They just monitor company inspections. Even worse, 12 days went by before Canadians were told.
Why did the science take that long? Is it because the government fired 90 biologists, the scientists whose job it was to do that science?
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, that question comes from another ill-informed opposition member. If he would care to remember, the system that the CFIA is using now, called CVS, was brought in in 2005 under his government. If he does not like it, why did he not say so then? I do not understand what he is caterwauling about.
What we have done as a government is consistently construct a stronger CFIA to ensure it has the capacity to ensure consumers are safely served.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, that complacency brought us Walkerton.
The United States, not Canada, first discovered the contamination issue at XL Foods. That is embarrassing.
Why did it take 12 days for the government to notify Canadians of the risks? Will the government admit that the delay happened because it fired 90 biologists?
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely not true. 
We will continue to ensure that food safety officials respond efficiently based on sound science and internationally accepted protocols to ensure the safety of food for Canadian consumers.
We are introducing important legislation to help the CFIA respond to food safety situations more swiftly. If the opposition is as serious about safety as it claims to be, I hope the Liberals will support Bill S-11.
Natural ResourcesRalph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, former Conservative minister Jim Prentice took the government to the woodshed yesterday over its mismanagement of pipelines. Canadian resources need access to markets, but the process for getting there is badly mangled by the government's failure to consult aboriginal peoples.
 “There will be no way forward on west coast access without the central participation of the first nations...”, Mr. Prentice said. “The crown obligation to engage first nations in a meaningful way has yet to be taken up”, he said.
Why is that?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member opposite has it wrong. When the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business estimates that oil sands companies do 1.3 billion dollars' worth of business each year with aboriginal-owned companies, I think that shows that consultation in energy development is working for those aboriginal communities.
An independent, comprehensive, science-based evaluation of the proposed northern gateway project is currently under way. First nations are being consulted extensively as part of that review.
The EnvironmentMs. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, more and more Conservatives are criticizing other Conservatives. They cannot agree. Former fisheries minister Tom Siddon has already said that the Conservative plan for fish habitat protection is a disaster. And now, former environment minister Jim Prentice is criticizing his former colleagues who refuse to consult the first nations about pipeline projects.
The Conservatives do not listen to Canadians, first nations or other Conservatives. Who do they listen to? Do they listen to lobbyists?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member who we are listening to. We are listening to the 41 first nations that we are providing funding for so that they can participate in the northern gateway pipeline review. Those are the Canadians we are listening to.
As I mentioned, we have an independent, comprehensive, science-based evaluation of the northern gateway pipeline taking place. The only ones who seem to want to interfere with that science-based process is the opposition and its House leader.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, the government is not consulting. I can understand why the minister is reluctant to engage in meaningful consultation with first nations. It is because he will probably hear an answer that he does not want to hear.
However, as Mr. Prentice warned his party yesterday, complacency is dangerous. The northern gateway carries enormous risks. If the Conservatives succeed in ramming it through, it is Canadians who will pay the price.
Will the minister take the advice of an old friend? Will he do his homework and will he actually consult with first nations?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the only ones who have made their minds up about this project are the opposition members. They have opposed every development project that has ever been proposed in Canada and they oppose our trade deals. Everything they talk about, including their $21 billion carbon tax, works against Canadians. It is time they set aside their ideology, join with us and start to create jobs for Canadians across the country.
Public SafetyMr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it would be nice if the Conservative members would stop making things up about the opposition and tried answering some questions. Let us see if we can get an answer here.
Reuters reports a new computer security breach by a Chinese group, and Calgary-based Telvent was the target. If it were not for the company warning their customers, the public would have never known.
Could the government confirm foreign involvement in this attack? In light of this, could Conservatives tell us if national security is part of the criteria for the Nexen takeover review?
Ms. Candice Bergen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government takes cyber security seriously and operates on the advice of security experts.
 Our government recently made significant investments of $90 million in a cyber security strategy designed to defend against electronic threats, hacking and cyber espionage.
Telecommunications carriers operating in Canada are certainly subject to Canadian law. We will continue to work to protect the interests of Canadians and protect them from cyber security threats.
International TradeKennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, all we hear from that side are more broken promises, and here is another one.
Canadians may be surprised to learn that Conservatives tabled a new trade agreement with China this week. Paul Wells from Maclean's reports that the agreement allows arbitration involving Canadian companies to be dealt with behind closed doors.
Why did Conservatives agree to have arbitration done in secret with no transparency? When will they bring the deal before the House for debate and a vote?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, improving access to high-growth markets in the Asia-Pacific region is a key part of our government's pro-trade plan. Our priority is to remove Chinese trade barriers and increase exports such as lumber, grain, beef and value-added Canadian products.
Our government's long-standing commitment is to provide public access to investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. Canada's FIPA with China is no different. As we do with other investor-state disputes, this FIPA provides for Canada to make all documents submitted to an arbitration tribunal available to the public.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, contrary to the Conservatives, the NDP believes that we need clear criteria to assess trade agreements.
The Conservatives said that they were going to table any new trade agreements in the House of Commons for 21 days of debate and comments, but they did not say whether they would put such agreements to a vote. I am wondering if they are worried about the result. 
In the trade agreement with China, a secret arbitration system has replaced the courts and, according to experts, this agreement is based on the Chinese model, which will certainly benefit China.
Will the Conservatives allow the House to debate and vote on this agreement without imposing a time limit?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our objective with this agreement is to ensure that for the first time Canadians have real protection for the investments they make in China. We think it is important to protect Canadian business people and investors.
Our government has introduced an unprecedented process for putting Canadian international treaties to the scrutiny of the House of Commons. That is why it was tabled in the House. That is why there is a period of time and a process set out. 
If opposition members wish to see a vote on that treaty in the House, they can have it. In fact, they have an opportunity on Monday to have it debated and voted upon. If they do not like that, they can do it on Tuesday and have it debated and voted upon. It is up to them whether they want to do that.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in his speech in New York, the Prime Minister did not announce new cuts to seniors programs. Instead, he launched into a diatribe against international consensus.
Let us speak about the international consensuses that the Conservatives tried to scuttle: the consensus on the ban on asbestos, the consensus on the fight against climate change, the consensus on cluster munitions and the consensus on arms trade.
In these areas, the Prime Minister agrees more with the rogue states than with our allies. Is this something to brag about?
Mr. Bob Dechert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that Canada is not interested in arms trade treaties, cluster munitions treaties, is ridiculous. Canada has set some of the highest global standards on export control of munitions. Canada looks forward to new negotiations on arms trade treaties.
Foreign AffairsMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to walk even a few blocks to address the UN and promote Canada. Today, he is refusing to meet with Canadian media to answer questions.
 While our allies are doing the hard work of diplomacy, Conservatives have put Canada on the sidelines. Does the Prime Minister think that a policy of self-imposed isolation is the best way of advancing Canada's interests?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, the Prime Minister will be meeting with two world leaders later today in New York. However, under our government, Canada's policy is no longer to please every dictator with a vote at the United Nations.
 We have taken strong, principled positions to promote freedom, human rights and the rule of law. In fact, the Prime Minister has delivered the UN General Assembly speech twice as many times as the two previous prime ministers of Canada.
National DefenceMathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, not only was the process to purchase F-35s a complete fiasco, but the actual decision to purchase them was made without key information. In a report presented to the government, the air force clearly mentioned that more information was needed on competing aircraft available to Canada.
 If the Conservatives knew that important information was missing on other options, why did they blindly go ahead and pick the F-35s?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat is to ensure transparency and due diligence in the process to replace the CF-18s. No money has been spent to purchase new fighter jets and no money will be spent until the secretariat conducts an independent review of the cost of replacing the CF-18s.
Political Party FinancingMathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, some troubling information was revealed by a man linked to organized crime and to the Conservatives. Businessman Lino Zambito lifted the veil on a system of collusion, kickbacks to the mafia and secret political financing. But I do not need to explain all that.
Senator Carignan, who was a Conservative candidate at the time, benefited from Zambito's generosity. Zambito and his partners put thousands of dollars into Conservative coffers.
Since they are involved, will the Conservatives co-operate with the authorities and reveal all of their ties to organized crime?
Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we take organized crime very seriously. Clearly, Bill C-10 brought in many measures to fight all organized crime, and we will encourage the Government of Quebec to pursue its investigation and try to break up organized crime.
However, we have to wonder why another organization, one not linked to organized crime—and that is not certain—received contributions of $340,000, although it was against the law.
Is there organized crime in the opposition? I have to wonder.
Scott Andrews: Mr. Speaker, Nathan Jacobson is a businessman with close ties to the Conservatives. He was convicted for his role in organized crime operations in the U.S. in 2008. Since then, he has been a big donor to the Conservatives and even appeared as a special guest of the Prime Minister during a visit of the prime minister of Israel. 
Has the government made the Conservative Party return the $10,000 in donations that it received from him and will it ask the NDP to do the same? Does any member have the courage to defend this, or will this just be the parliamentary secretary, whose credibility was so discredited in the in and out affair?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, our government conducts itself with the highest levels of standards. That is why we introduced an Federal Accountability Act with strict rules on contributions. That is why we limited contributions to now about $1,200 a year to ensure that the undue influence of money in politics is not there so ordinary Canadians have control over their political system, not dirty money, not bad money, not like the illegal contributions that the NDP receives, not like the $40 million that the Liberals took out of taxpayer coffers to fund its own party.
Employment InsuranceMs. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently met with the director of the Parc de la rivière Batiscan, who shared his concerns about the new employment insurance rules, which would prevent his organization from rehiring the same seasonal employees from one season to the next.
In light of the changes made to the employment insurance program, how does the government plan on guaranteeing that employers will be able to maintain consistency of employees and skills when it comes to seasonal jobs?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, our government wants to ensure those who work more keep more of their earnings. That is why we want as many Canadians as possible to have an opportunity to have a part-time job because we know many of those can be transferred to full-time jobs.
Unlike the opposition members, both the Liberals and the NDP, who do not seem to want to support the opportunities for unemployed Canadians to have employment, we have been focused on ensuring this occurs, whether that be the targeted initiative for older workers or the new EI small business hiring tax credit. These are all initiatives we have put forward to help those unemployed Canadians find an opportunity to work, creating 770,000 net new jobs, unlike the opposition members who vote against all these initiatives.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, actually we just voted against the government.
Here is a situation that we have once again. Let us take a look at EI for fishermen for just a moment. Sources throughout Atlantic Canada are now telling us that they are advised not to file a second claim in the new year. Therefore, naturally they are scared because they feel that in the spring of 2013 their benefits will be dramatically reduced or eliminated altogether.
Let us clear the air. Will the government preserve the sanctity of the fishermen's EI?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, unlike the opposition that just seems to be against things, we are actually for Canadians, ensuring they have an opportunity to be employed. We have created 770,000 net new jobs over the last two and a half years, and we will continue to do that.
Economic action plan 2012 put forward a number of initiatives, whether that be helmets to hardhats or the opportunity for the EI small business hiring tax credit.
I want to ensure, as do all my colleagues, that Canadians have an opportunity for employment, unlike the members of the NDP and the Liberals who voted against all these initiatives.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that no one would be affected by the Conservatives' changes to employment insurance. My riding of Hochelaga was hit hard by closures, with the 700 or more jobs lost at Mabe for example. Hochelaga would benefit from a real job-creation plan to help these workers.
Will the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development finally admit that she was wrong and stop her crusade against unemployed Canadians? Will the minister take a step back with her reforms?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, as I said already, our government wants to ensure that those who work more keep more of their earnings. That is why economic action plan 2012 is focused on ensuring unemployed Canadians have opportunities, whether that be the $50 million over two years in the youth employment strategy or new apprenticeship grants and opportunities, items which both the Liberals and the NDP have continually voted against. What about the NDP carbon tax of $21 billion that will kill jobs across the country?
These are things we are focused on to ensure Canadians have opportunities and are employed.
François Choquette: Mr. Speaker, the minister spent all week saying that these changes to employment insurance would not have any negative effects on workers. But that is not the case, according to Regroupement de défense de droits sociaux de Drummond.
The stories of people who are losing out because of these inadequate reforms are pouring in. The new rules penalize Canadians and, more specifically, the least fortunate.
The Conservatives know this is true. Will they finally admit that and cancel the changes to the program?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, this government has created 770,000 net new jobs since the downturn of the recession in July 2009. In fact, 90% of those were full-time jobs. That is because we have had a very effective economic action plan, which includes a number of initiatives that provide opportunities for employment of young people, older individuals, aboriginal Canadians and new immigrants.
We are working to ensure every Canadian has the opportunity to have a job and be attached to the workforce. I am not sure why the NDP and the Liberals continually vote against these opportunities.
Mrs. Sana Hassainia (Verchères—Les Patriotes, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development spent all week trying to make us believe all sorts of things. She can put her head in the sand and repeat all she wants that no one will lose money with her reforms, but that is not true.
We know very well that workers who unfortunately lose their jobs but are not the CEO of a big oil company, obviously, will not get any assistance from this government. But the Conservatives continue to deny the facts.
How long will the Conservatives keep burying their heads in the sand?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, this government has provided unprecedented opportunities for Canadians to find employment. We are doing everything that we can to better connect Canadians with the jobs that are available.
It is the Liberals' and the NDP's opposition to these great initiatives that really has stifled those opportunities, whether that was voting against the youth employment strategy or against apprenticeship funding. These are things that will help Canadians find jobs and be attached to the workforce. The opposition continues to vote against them.
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense. The Conservatives have been making things up all week. Their stories about employment insurance are so far-fetched that I think we are about to hear about hobbits. But the NDP has spoken to unemployed workers across the country. We have spoken to people from the Magdalen Islands who were offered a job in Bonaventure, and to seasonal workers from Manitoba whose cheques were cut because they had a little job on the side. People are worried and frustrated.
Can the Conservatives come out of their fantasy land and acknowledge the real consequences of their poorly thought-out reforms?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, the workers in my riding of Simcoe—Grey are delighted with these changes because they allow those people who are unemployed to find jobs. The changes are better connecting them to an opportunity to have a job so they can improve the quality of life of their families.
Unlike the Liberals and the NDP that vote against all these initiatives that are providing Canadians with opportunities for jobs, we are there for Canadians. We are focused on finding jobs so they can improve the quality of life of their families.
The EconomyJohn Carmichael: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada announced today that Canada's economy grew again in July. July's economic growth and the nearly 770,000 net new jobs created since July 2009 are positive signs.
While we are focused on growing the economy and creating jobs, the NDP is pushing radical economic schemes, like a massive carbon tax.
Could the parliamentary secretary explain the devastating impact the NDP's carbon tax would have on our economy?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs and promoting economic growth. We are working to keep Canada's economy growing with measures like the job-creating hiring credit for small business. As reported, July's economic growth shows that we are right on track.
However, the NDP is pushing radical economic schemes, like a massive carbon tax, that would kill Canadian jobs and economic growth. Even worse, its carbon tax would increase the price of everything that Canadian families buy, like gas and groceries and electricity. Canadians and our economy cannot afford the NDP's radical economic schemes.
Bank FeesPaulina Ayala: Mr. Speaker, the major banks are increasing their clients' service fees. On November 5, the National Bank will increase the cost of a bank transaction from $0.65 to $1, an increase of more than 50%. They are not satisfied with the record $7.8 billion profit they recorded in the last quarter. That is much higher than the rate of inflation. 
Why are Conservatives not protecting families from the banks' greed? Why are they letting them pick their clients' pockets?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question because it gives me the opportunity to say that the banks pay taxes that support our social programs and health care systems. Furthermore, the NDP's carbon tax would increase not just the cost of groceries and electricity, but the cost of everything Canadian families buy. Canadians cannot afford that.
Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we know what the Conservatives do in such situations: they recommend voluntary codes of conduct. I did say voluntary. That is what they did with credit cards and we saw what happened. Credit card holders continue to pay exorbitant interest rates, and household debt continues to increase and reach historic highs. 
Bank fees are already unreasonable. When will the Conservatives take action to protect consumers?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. 
The NDP does not want to support our measures such as those to create jobs, but it might listen to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which had this to say: “Merchants have been well served by the code. It has established fair ground rules and protected the low-cost debit system in Canada.”
In other words, we are protecting Canadian consumers. It is unfortunate that the NDP always votes against our measures.
Gasoline PricesAnnick Papillon: Mr. Speaker, we know that is not true.
Bank fees are not the only way consumers are getting ripped off while the Conservatives stand idly by watching the clouds and waiting for something to happen.
Gasoline prices have skyrocketed, up 36% since they came to power.
In Quebec, the average price of gas is often higher than $1.40 per litre. The Conservatives' failure to take action is costing Canadians too much. It is irresponsible.
How long will they wait before doing something to protect consumers? When will they take action?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to taking action for the sake of taking action, I think the member for Québec could use a reality check.
The government cut the GST by 2%. It implemented a measure to ensure fairness at the pumps and gave the Competition Bureau more power.
What are the members opposite advocating? A carbon tax that would cost Canadian taxpayers $21 billion. Twenty-one billion dollars. That is not just a gas tax, it is a tax on everything.
I think my esteemed colleagues could really use a reality check.
Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are so busy making up stories about the NDP that they are forgetting about drivers.
A 36¢ increase adds up to $15 billion. That is quite a tax. That is pure extortion, and it is their fault.
Another long weekend is coming up, and everyone knows that the price of gas will go up again. But the Conservatives will continue to do nothing.
When will they act on behalf of Canadian consumers and drivers?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, my colleague was not here during the last Parliament. That might be why he did not realize we lowered the GST by two points, implemented measures to oversee fairness at the pumps and gave the Competition Bureau more power.
His party's election platform advocated a $21 billion carbon tax. Twenty-one billion dollars! Did they consider the price of gas and of everything else, including food, energy and so on?
Once again, my colleagues need a reality check.
Foreign InvestmentHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, regarding the proposed Nexen sale to CNOOC, to ensure long-term net benefit to Canada, is the government requiring that Canadians make up the majority of the Nexen board and that there would be Canadian representation on the CNOOC board?
Further, Canadian banks continue to face significant barriers to growth when doing business in China. Is the government leveraging on the Nexen discussion to attain greater access to Chinese markets for the Canadian financial services sector?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, maybe this approach was the one adopted by the previous government, but on our side, each single deal that is proposed here will have to provide a net benefit for Canada. We will consider the highest interest for Canadians. 
Speaking about this transaction, I repeat, this will be scrutinized very closely and whatever happens will be in the best interests of Canada.
Aboriginal AffairsHon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): 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?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we are conducting an independent comprehensive science-based evaluation of the proposed northern gateway pipeline. 
First nations are being consulted extensively during that. I have a list here of 41 first nations that we are helping with funding so that they can present before the northern gateway pipeline panel.
As I said earlier, when we hear from the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business that aboriginal companies do 1.3 billion dollars' worth of business with oil sands companies, we think the consultation on energy development is working for aboriginal communities.
Parks CanadaMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP): Mr. Speaker, now when Canadians go into a federal park, they are greeted by signs instead of interpretive guides.
Why? Once again, because of the Conservatives' cuts. A $30 million cut means reduced services for visitors.
Some 600 jobs for guides, archeologists and scientists have been cut. In addition to the loss of employment, the reduced number of visitors and tourists will have a serious impact on regional economic spinoffs.
In my riding, the hours of operation at the Battle of the Châteauguay National Historic Site have been reduced, even though this year we are celebrating the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812.
Why are the Conservatives attacking our heritage?
Ms. Michelle Rempel (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that under our government's tenure we have increased protected park space by over 50%. It is our government that has been committed to protecting our country's natural heritage through our parks program and we will absolutely continue to do so. 
Our parks service is well funded and will continue to deliver the service that all Canadians and visitors to Canada to see our natural heritage expect from it.
Postal ServiceCharmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, my constituents are extremely concerned about the impending closure of the Terrebonne post office on October 26, 2012. This closure is part of a whole round of privatization of Canada Post services. Many local citizens and businesses will be affected by this senseless closure. Once again, for the Conservatives, profits come before people.
Why are the Conservatives so determined to undermine the economy of my riding by privatizing essential services like Canada Post services?
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is an arm's length crown corporation that makes day-to-day operating decisions based on market demand. 
I know that is difficult for members of the NDP to understand, but if we want to make Canada Post viable in the long term, it will have to make adjustments from time to time. That is what Canada Post has done.
Natural ResourcesMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our natural resource sector is a powerhouse in the Canadian economy and it employs hundreds of thousands of Canadians. That is because this Conservative government has taken action to strengthen this important sector by streamlining reviews while ensuring that Canada's environment remains safe. 
Could the parliamentary secretary explain what the NDP's plan to add an even greater red tape burden and a carbon tax would do to Canada's resource sector?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I have to thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George for his insightful question and his excellent work on this file. As the Minister of Industry pointed out so clearly, the NDP's dangerous carbon tax would increase prices for all Canadians. It would kill Canadian jobs in the resource sector. It would not just damage the west, as the leader of the NDP would claim, but all of Canada.
Ontario finance minister, Dwight Duncan, has this to say: 
 Alberta's oilsands are a valuable resource both here in Alberta and the entire country, a resource that helps fuel the Canadian economy. 
When will the NDP abandon its reckless ideology, change its policies and join us as we create jobs for Canadians?
Foreign AffairsHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was hanging out with his buddies in New York, the leaders of the free world were actually battling it out on the floor of the United Nations. Ironically, one of the Prime Minister's guests in this love-in was none other than the king of NHL lockouts, Gary Bettman.
Could the minister tell the House whether they exchanged views on the benefits of lockouts and prorogation? Or did the commissioner merely advise the Prime Minister to stay off the ice while the big boys battle it out?
Bob Dechert: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member was not paying attention when I mentioned earlier that the Prime Minister is meeting with two world leaders in New York today. 
The member should probably also know that the Prime Minister received the statesman of the year award last night, which is a great mark of distinction for Canada and one that the member will also know—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
EmploymentIsabelle Morin: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has also abdicated its responsibilities toward youth. Statistics Canada recently revealed that young people are living with their parents for longer because of their unstable economic situation. They are coping with rising debt levels and a 14% unemployment rate. Instead of helping them, the Conservatives are cutting the programs that they count on, such as Service Canada's services for youth. 
Will the government do something for our young people, for the next generation? When will it come up with a plan to create jobs for youth?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, we actually did put forward a plan in the budget in March, some $50 million for the youth employment strategy. It is an augmentation of an existing $300 million program that the NDP voted against. 
We read the budget. We know what is in it. We know that we are supporting students, whether it be through the youth employment strategy or changing Canada's student loans programs to allow youth to get the education they want to enter the workforce. 
Why does the NDP vote against all these initiatives?
Sealing IndustryMrs. Tilly O'Neill Gordon (Miramichi, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while the opposition members pander to extremist NGOs and pretentious Hollywood stars, they are outright disappointing for Canada's fishermen and sealers. Our government will continue to defend the right of our sealers to provide a livelihood for their families through our humane, responsible and sustainable harvest.
Canada has a long history of hunting and gathering. It is part of who we are. Could the parliamentary secretary give us an update on our government's continued fight against the European Union seal ban?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hard-working colleague from Miramichi for her very good question. I want to assure her that our government is committed to protecting hard-working Canadian sealers. 
While members of both the NDP and Liberal Party have spoken out against the seal hunt, our government continues to fight for it. We are addressing the European Union ban by initiating a dispute settlement proceeding at the World Trade Organization. The ban on seal products adopted in the European Union was a decision that has no scientific basis and is inconsistent with free trade practices. 
We will continue to support the jobs, growth and economic prosperity of Atlantic Canadians and aboriginal peoples. 
Employment InsuranceMr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are making cuts to employment insurance and although the minister keeps telling us that no one is affected, there are 300,000 more unemployed workers than before the recession.
The only plan the Conservatives have is to make people work 300 km from where they live. Considering the price of gas, the minister better not try to tell us this has no impact.
Why should unemployed Canadians have to pay for the tax breaks being given to oil companies?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, let us get the facts straight. There have been 770,000 net new jobs created since July 2009. Ninety per cent of those are full-time jobs. 
There are a number of initiatives that have been put forward in the last number of budgets, such as the youth employment strategy, the targeted initiative for older workers, apprenticeship programs, the working income tax benefit, the apprenticeship incentive grant, the EI hiring tax credit. All of these are opportunities to help Canadians to find jobs. 
I ask the NDP members opposite, why do they just want to raise taxes and kill jobs?
Status of WomenMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the support of the Minister for Status of Women for a motion to reopen the abortion debate has met with huge disapproval from women's groups in Quebec. 
The Fédération des femmes du Québec and the Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances called for her resignation, and now many others are objecting to her position: the Quebec minister for the status of women, the Conseil du statut de la femme, the Intersyndicale des femmes, and more than 10,000 people who have signed petitions that have been circulating for just 24 hours.
The minister may have voted according to her conscience, but will she admit that she is now unfit to occupy a position that protects the interests and the rights of women?
Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, MPs have voted. The House of Commons voted. We now have to get on with other issues.
I am very proud of what our government has done for women and girls. Our government has supported over 550 projects for women and girls from coast to coast to coast. We have increased funding for women and girls to its highest level ever, over any other government. 
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, some members of the Conservative caucus want to close the debate. For example the member for Mississauga—Brampton South said that this debate takes us back to the age of the dinosaurs. Unfortunately, others want to push back.
Will the Prime Minister, whose leadership was undermined by the majority vote of his caucus, which contradicted his election promise, put an end to the ambiguity around this issue, as called for by the Quebec National Assembly in a unanimous motion?
Susan Truppe: Mr. Speaker, as I said, MPs were representing their constituents. The House of Commons voted and it is time to move on. 
We are very proud of what our government has done for women and girls and we have made that very clear. As I said, over 550 projects were supported for women and girls from coast to coast to coast, and we have approved the most money for women and girls, over any other government.

Routine Proceedings
House of Commons CalendarHon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between all parties and I think you will find consent for the following motion:
 That, notwithstanding Standing Order 28 or any other usual practice of the House, the following proposed calendar for the year 2013 be tabled and that the House adopt this calendar accordingly. 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Does the chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by several hundred people from the Ottawa area who are calling for the government to intervene in the deplorable situation in Africa related to Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army, who keeps abducting children to turn them into soldiers and stirring up trouble throughout East Africa. What is more, this movement is spreading.
Canadian citizens are calling for the government to intervene in an appropriate manner to put an end to this reign of terror led by Joseph Kony.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first petition is about changing the age of eligibility for OAS, which will disproportionately impact middle-income seniors by approximately $12,000 over two years. The petitioners call on Parliament to reject the changes in the age of eligibility and to increase the OAS and the GIS to end seniors' poverty and ensure it is indexed to the cost of living.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the next petition concerns a call to reinstate funding to first nations health organizations. It points out that these funding cuts will create devastating health outcomes for first nations people and will increase health care spending in the long term.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I have hundreds of petitions here. I would like to thank the dedicated volunteers who have shown so much commitment in collecting petitions over the last year. 
The petitioners point out that every year, in a number of Asian regions, hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats are brutally slaughtered for their fur. Canada should join the U.S., Australia and the EU in banning the import of cat and dog fur. They call on Parliament to support legislation such as Bill C-296,  which would amend the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and the Textile Labelling Act.
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to present this petition from many of my constituents, as well as other people in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. They point out in the petition that a high percentage of the lives lost in aircraft accidents are due to preventable post-impact fires. They point out to the government and to the Minister of Transport that the minister should be aware of current inexpensive technologies such as G switches and that he should require the use of these technologies by regulation and enforcement to reduce the cost of approvals and certificates for upgraders and manufacturers, and then allocate the necessary resources to this end to prevent the loss of life in otherwise survivable accidents.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. 
The first petition is calling on the House of Commons to protect OAS or old age security. They mention the NDP moved an opposition day motion calling on the House to reject the proposal by the Prime Minister to increase the age of eligibility for old age security, while also calling on the government to take the necessary measures to eliminate poverty among seniors. They call on the government to maintain funding for OAS and make the requisite investments in the guaranteed income supplement to lift every senior out of poverty.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is calling on the government to remove its support for the development of the northern gateway pipeline, assume a neutral position on the outcome awaiting the evidence, and ensure a full, fair and impartial process under the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. In this petition, they mention the government has a constitutional responsibility to first nations to ensure their inherent rights are respected.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the final petition is one I have presented a number of times in the House. The petitioners indicate that Canadians have a right to make informed choices about the food they eat by having adequate information provided on food labels. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to support An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods).
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Political Loans Accountability Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to political loans), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville has two and a half minutes to complete her speech, and then there will be five minutes for questions and comments.
The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off earlier.
Bill C-21 states that political entities must report loans in their financial statements. They must specify the amount of the loan, the interest rate, the lender’s name and address, the dates and amounts of repayments of principal and payments of interest, as well as any guarantor’s name and address and the amount guaranteed. The financial agent must report any amendment to the Chief Electoral Officer.
I would like to talk about this measure because I think that it will make transactions more transparent in terms of the lenders and the political entities receiving the loans.
This measure will also help the public find out where the money is coming from, when and how much. This is extremely important. Unfortunately, some entities are still not behaving ethically. We have seen the Conservative Party's questionable practices. In Quebec, the Charbonneau commission is looking into allegations of fraud. People are very concerned about this issue.
Many of my constituents are asking me what is going on and whether they can trust their representatives. These people watch the news and read the papers, so they are informed citizens. However, when they see things like this, they wonder whether democracy really exists in Canada and to whom their representatives are accountable.
I think that such measures will help boost public confidence in our democracy. People will certainly have more confidence that their representatives are following the rules and funding their campaigns appropriately.
Bill C-21 must move forward. I expressed some concerns about financial institutions. We will have to take a closer look at that issue. In general, we all agree that this bill should go to committee.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, this morning, before question period, my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville said something I felt was very important.
She talked about the need to limit the influence that large lobby groups have on democracy. I would like her to comment further on that.
[Interjection]
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her wonderful question.
It is a cause for extreme concern when a political party receives a large loan from a group with money in its coffers, because that group might be pushing certain ideas. Will the candidate feel inclined to promote these ideas because he received a large loan from the group?
Smaller groups with limited financial resources may not be able to give loans, which really puts some groups at a disadvantage. But this practice is still allowed, even though it is unethical and the House should not be using or promoting it.
I am happy to see that some measures are being put forward aimed at restricting and eliminating the possibility that entities will give loans to political parties or candidates.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I commend my dear colleague for the views she expressed.
In keeping with the legacy of our former leader, Jack Layton, should we also mention how important it is to be optimistic about our parliamentary work and to strive to restore politics' noble reputation, especially among young people? 
[Interjection]
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is very important to get young people involved in politics in general. We need to give them the assurance that their voice counts and encourage them to vote.
As I explained earlier, given all the negative events and the fraud that is happening left and right, young people are clearly not inclined to go and vote, as they wonder whether these people really represent them.
As parliamentarians and elected representatives of our ridings, we have a responsibility to put forward initiatives like these to combat the existing cynicism. 
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, this is a complex issue. As my colleague said, we support the bill at second reading and want to see it go to committee.
There is one issue that we will have to examine closely, and that is whether there will still be loopholes that would allow people to get around the rules, even though the bill indicates that it would tighten up the issue around loans. 
Would the member comment on that and the important work that probably needs to be done on the legislation? The committee will need to look at it very carefully.
[Interjection]
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, I believe this deserves a thorough study in committee, partly because of the issue with financial institutions. Will some institutions be more likely to give loans to some parties rather than others depending on how the party's position favours financial institutions? That issue deserves an indepth study.
As we have seen, there have been accusations, and that fact does bother some people. Without a doubt, if the manager of a business with 10 staff members asks each of them to donate the maximum amount to a specific political party, it would be extremely alarming.
We need to examine such behaviours and find ways to address them. I believe that if we were to study this bill and look for ways to go even further, it would be the ideal approach for citizens and for a better representation.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-21, which would amend the provisions of the Canada Elections Act that affects loans and guarantees to political entities, whether registered parties, registered associations, candidates, leadership contestants or nomination contestants.
 I am splitting my time with the member for Québec.
It is an important bill and, as I said earlier, it is a complex issue. We should recognize that when people run for leadership for a political party, it is a huge undertaking financially and in terms of a political commitment to their family, community, party and the country. It is easy to focus on some of the problems that occur, and there are problems, and that is why the bill has come forward. We should also remember the enormous sacrifice that people make, no matter what party, when they decide to run for the leadership. 
The NDP just went through a leadership race. It was an incredible democratic process. We had hundreds of thousands of Canadians engaged in that process, culminating in the election of our new leader from Outremont.
When we went to the candidate meetings or had interaction with the candidates, our party could see how incredibly hard-working they were and the time and energy everybody put into their campaign teams.
We need to recognize that because politics gets such a bad name. People feel cynical and it is partly because of financial issues. Bills like this one tend to reinforce the negative side. Therefore, let us also be positive and celebrate the fact that individuals make this commitment to give that kind of public service. I wanted to begin my remarks with that because it needs to be said. 
We support the bill at second reading. There will be a general rule that loans and guarantees to political entities are prohibited. There are exceptions to that. Financial institutions can give loans to political entities at a market interest rate and in writing, so that is a very clear, transparent thing. Individuals can as well, as long as they respect the limit under the act, which, as of January, was I believe $1,200, and as long as the loans are repaid, a very key point, within the calendar year or guarantees for which an individual is no longer liable in the calendar year will not be taken into consideration for an individual's contribution, loan and guarantee limit.
Finally, one of the three exceptions is that political parties or associations can make loans or stand surety for loans to a candidate or an association as long as it is in writing. There are some very clear rules.
Just by way of background, I was in Parliament in 2003 when the original bill, and I do not remember the name of it but it was under the Jean Chrétien government, came forward and reformed political financing. It sought to limit the donations to political entities from private individuals and legal persons, but at that time it did not limit political loans.
That was very important legislation and it did create a benchmark to ensure that Canadian political process and running in an election and so on was fair. It was a very historic.
I would compare us with the United States where there is virtually no rules. An individual has to raise millions and millions of dollars. Most of us could never run in the U.S. We simply would be unable to raise the kind of money as progressive people taking strong stands. We would never get all the lobbyists and so on. I always think about the situation in the U.S. where it is so much controlled by big lobbyists and big financial contributions. Therefore, the bill introduced in 2003 was very important.
In 2006 the Federal Accountability Act was the first legislation introduced by the Conservative government, and the NDP was very instrumental. I remember the member for Winnipeg Centre worked very hard with the minister at the time. That also was an important act, which lowered the maximum annual limit from $5,000 to $1,000, but it did not address the issue of political loans.
It is curious that in both 2003 and 2006, neither of those pieces of legislation from two different governments and two different political parties dealt with the question of political loans. I would like to put on the record that the NDP has always been in favour of limiting what we would characterize as the influence of third parties, both on political parties and during leadership contests. 
It seems to me that the principle here is to ensure that there is transparency, that there are clear rules, that there are not ways to get around the rules and make oneself a loan or have someone make a loan that we know would never be repayable. Our party has always had an understanding, support, and advocacy for this kind of principle in favour of limiting the influence of third parties. This is why we are supporting the bill.
I would go further and say that Ed Broadbent, the former member for Ottawa Centre, former leader of the NDP, and a very well-known member of Parliament, made an enormous contribution in his time serving the House. He put forward a platform that called for transparency, clear rules, cleaning up politics for stronger accountability, and financing rules for leadership contests. That is what we are also talking about today. Sometimes we forget these things, so it is good to put on the record the work of a former colleague who really did make a difference and who espoused these principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability. I want to give kudos to Mr. Ed Broadbent for doing that.
When we debated the accountability act in 2006, we were very clear that it should have included provisions on political loans. We deplored the fact that it was silent on this matter. Again, the member for Winnipeg Centre did an enormous amount of work. We ended up agreeing as far as the bill went that we would support it, but we always believed that it should go further.
Here we are today in 2012. The bill before us has had quite a history and has already been hanging around for almost a year. It was previously Bill C-19 and C-29. It has had various versions, and here it is being debated today. I think it was the government House leader who said earlier that the government would push and convince all the opposition parties to deal with the bill. Quite clearly, for us in the NDP, we have always supported these kinds of measures and we will support the bill in principle.
I want to end on this note. This is a very complex issue. One has to really go through this stuff with a fine-tooth comb and see whether or not there are loopholes. I hope that when it gets to the committee, its members will almost look at it from a negative point of view, from the point of view of how someone can get around it. We need to ask ourselves that question to ensure that the bill is sufficient and adequate and covers the principles that it espouses. I am glad that we are supporting the bill and look forward to it being at committee.
Annick Papillon: Mr. Speaker, I first want to tell my colleague that I really enjoyed her insightful speech. It is also interesting to hear a member who has been in the House for some time and who still talks about how people feel when they witness a certain cynicism about politics. They sometimes feel like no one is listening to them.
I would like the member to comment on what an expert, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, had to say. Obviously, this is someone who knows what he is talking about. Marc Mayrand said it was impossible to enforce the law on political loans at this time, because it is overly complex, incoherent and ineffective.
I think there is a link between his comments and my colleague's speech. I would like her comments on this, namely on the importance of listening to what people in the field have to say about this.
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, many of the provisions in the bill are based on recommendations that came from the Chief Electoral Officer, and that is as it should be. This is an impartial individual who oversees the Canada Elections Act.
On the positive side, Elections Canada is a very well-reputed organization. It has good standing with an international reputation. However, as the member points out, this stuff gets complicated, even for MPs. We want to follow the rules and do what is right, but there are so many nuances and things to pay attention to in terms of election financial reporting and so on. Therefore, anything we can do, through this bill or other measures, would make the process clearer and more transparent for both ourselves and the general public in terms of accountability.
We have seen all kinds of awful situations. For example, the in and out advertising scheme that the Conservatives engaged in. They basically denied that they did anything wrong and then pleaded guilty at the end and had to pay fines. Clearly there are issues that still have to be addressed and I think that we should pay attention to the Chief Electoral Officer.
Bill C-21 is one step, but this is something that needs our ongoing vigilance.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I greatly admire my colleague from Vancouver East for her great wisdom and all the experience she brings to our discussions.
Earlier, she mentioned the shortcomings of Bill C-21. Based on her experience, which important issues should be discussed in committee, once the bill reaches the committee stage?
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I do not know specifically of any loopholes. However, I asked the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader earlier what he thought about loopholes, as he has been very involved with the bill, and he did mention one potential area where something could apply locally but not at a national level.
Maybe there are no loopholes in the bill, maybe it is airtight. However, it does require a very close examination to ensure that one cannot get around the principles being put forward on loans by doing indirectly what one is not allowed to do directly.
 I have full confidence that the NDP members on committee who get this bill will do their due diligence in examining the bill in great detail. Maybe there will be amendments and when it comes back at report stage we will have an improved bill. We know what we are looking for and what we want to accomplish here, but I think that will be the work of the committee. I look forward to it.
Annick Papillon: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here in the House and to take part in today's debate on Bill C-21. I would like to begin my comments on this bill by paying tribute to a former leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, who represented the Ottawa Centre riding, for he was the first person to point out that the political donation regime in this country has a very obvious loophole. Mr. Broadbent had the sense to recognize that even though the maximum amounts of money that can be donated to a political campaign or to a political party had been reduced, by allowing these huge loans, which never really have to be paid back, it was obvious that somebody with a lack of ethical standards would take advantage of that loophole and act as though there were no financial limits. I therefore wish to recognize Mr. Broadbent for raising this issue for us in his ethics package. 
The reforms to our political financing regime introduced by the Liberal government in 2003 limited donations to political parties from individuals and corporations, but, they did not limit political loans. The Federal Accountability Act, which passed in 2006, amended the political financing regime by lowering private contribution limits from $5,000 to $1,000, but it did not address the question of loans. That explains why we are debating this here today, and that is what Bill C-21 is meant to correct. Everyone agrees that this is a problem. We need to listen to all of the solutions being proposed and, together, come up with the best way to solve the problem.
Bill C-21 proposes prohibiting unions and corporations from granting loans to political parties and election candidates. Most of these changes were requested by the Chief Electoral Officer some years ago. Indeed, in 2007, the Chief Electoral Officer published a report on political financing that included a series of recommendations. The Chief Electoral Officer's proposed changes were aimed at limiting the influence of individuals or corporations on political parties, since this can occur through financing. Bill C-21 is based largely on those recommendations, which is why we support it at second reading.
This bill, if passed, would establish a strict reporting regime for all political loans, which would include the mandatory disclosure of the identity of the lender and the terms of the loan, such as the interest rates. In addition, loans by individuals would be limited to $1,100 and only banks and political parties would be authorized to lend higher amounts. Under this bill, loans from individuals not repaid within 18 months would be considered contributions, and loans not repaid to financial institutions would be transferred to riding associations, which would become responsible for their repayment.
At present, the rules for political loans do not satisfy the standards of accountability, integrity and transparency that Canadians expect of their political process. I cannot emphasize enough how important this is. In that regard, Bill C-21 seems to be a step in the right direction and that is why the NDP will support it. Believe me, we are here to support any good initiative. For once, the government is headed in the right direction.
These new measures will foster greater fairness and ensure that the political process is and will always be in the hands of the people. A campaign should always be about ideas and not about who can spend the most money. That is not what a leadership race should be about. Members must first and foremost be accountable to their voters. It is important to eliminate the possibility of undue influence of elected representatives by corporations.
Bill C-21 would also amend rules for leadership races. In that regard, the most striking example, and the one that has garnered the most public attention, is the Liberal Party of Canada leadership race.
Even if companies and unions did not have the right to contribute a single dollar, they could still lend tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Individuals could also lend much more than they were allowed to donate. We do not want to see a repeat of what happened with that party, where six years later, leadership candidates seem to have simply abandoned the idea of repaying their campaign debts. It is completely unacceptable.
If that is the case and a candidate was backed by individuals, then in reality those individuals bankrolled a big part of the candidate's campaign. If the debt is never paid off, then we end up in exactly the situation that we are trying to avoid, which is single individuals, single corporations and single unions providing tens, and possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars to one candidate. 
Liberal members point out that Bill C-21 could prevent more women from entering politics. I think that the reverse is true. The bill will level the playing field so that people who are sponsored by companies, as was the case in the Liberal Party of Canada leadership race, will not have a competitive advantage over a woman who does not have this sort of backing. The purpose of Bill C-21 is to eliminate the influence of the wealthy in politics, while the under-representation of women in politics is a complex issue due to many factors that go well beyond political loans.
Some members are wondering how they will be able to raise money if backers are only authorized to donate a maximum of $1,100 per candidate. They are also concerned about the fact that Bill C-21 will prevent donors from making a donation to a leadership contestant if the candidate has outstanding debts. 
The Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, recently made a very important statement. He said that it is virtually impossible to enforce the law on political loans because it is “not only overly complex, it's incoherent and ineffective.” 
We have this expertise, we have recommendations from Elections Canada. This is an example that relates to Bill C-21. However, in all kinds of other scandals where we have to shed light on what happened, it is important—I cannot repeat that enough—for this government to listen to recommendations from Elections Canada and the experts working in the field, to take the necessary action.
A number of these concerns from people in the field are legitimate, and that is why we must carefully examine each clause of this bill. I hope that there will be some latitude in committee to discuss what kind of system to adopt and what protection measures could be implemented. Every time we consider limiting the ways Canadians can collect funds to participate in an election, we must ensure not only that the system is fair, but also that everyone has access to funding, regardless of political affiliation.
We support the idea of eliminating the loophole. However, we feel that some improvements are necessary in order to strengthen our system.
We are very concerned to see banks and other financial institutions become the sole sources of financing without being required to subsidize all parties, regardless of the circumstances. This is a big problem, but we can resolve it. If we want, we can find ways to include conditions that would be acceptable to everyone involved, in order to make things fairer.
I am sure that we could find a solution that would meet the government's objectives—to standardize the financial rules—and ensure that our electoral laws are applied equally across the country, so that in future federal elections, everyone—and I mean everyone—has equal opportunity and those who are supported by certain companies do not have an unfair competitive advantage. 
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, in the last election in May 2011, the NDP succeeded in getting a record 40% women elected. Women were also very well represented in our leadership race.
In the opinion of my colleague from Québec, how important is it to fix the rules on political loans with respect to women's representation in politics? In society, women account not for 40% or 30% of the population, but 51%. How could the rules we would like to see adopted here create a more gender-balanced representation in the House of Commons? I see it as essential.
[Interjection]
Annick Papillon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing up this important point.
We can never repeat it enough: the NDP made a historic achievement when 40% of its elected candidates were women; no other party has ever achieved such a record. I believe we can congratulate ourselves, because it is fantastic. I thank my colleague for bringing it up. Women's rights are important. This is a point we have also raised when discussing other bills, which shows how strongly we support it. 
Bill C-21 really aims to eliminate the influence of the richest participants in politics, so that one candidate is not favoured over another, or a female candidate is not favoured over a male one. This is a very important objective, in my eyes. The goal is not to favour one party or one group over another.
This is what we will need to discuss in depth when the committee studies this bill, to ensure there is no favouritism and all candidates have an equal chance. I believe it is important, and it also speaks to what democracy is all about. I know everyone on this side of the House shares this idea with deep conviction.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give sincere thanks to my colleague for what she told us today and for speaking with the conviction which accurately reflects what motivates us.
 I hope that the people who are listening to what goes on in the House at the moment can hear the originality and sense of political renewal that characterize her and that have characterized the party for a long time now.
 In her view, could we not imagine that giving a signal that politics can be virtuous might be the beginning of a promising collaboration?
[Interjection]
Annick Papillon: Mr. Speaker, I have caught the ball on the fly and I am also going to talk about another historic exploit accomplished by the NDP. We are going to talk about it. Let us talk about our young people. It is fantastic. People cannot get over the fact that our party is made up of people from 20 to 70 years old, and even a little older. We have brought together people from all generations and this is a wonderful thing. I commend Jack Layton on his excellent work. I also applaud the work that has been done by my leader. It is like a breath of fresh air and we all want to start out on an equal footing.
I was saying that the NDP does not automatically favour men rather than women and I can also say that we do not favour those who are older as opposed to those who are younger and who are able to rise to the challenge of carrying on a real debate here in the House and proudly representing their regions and their constituents.
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech and on the passion with which she speaks every day in this House.
On reading the bill, I found a flaw in terms of financial institutions. In my colleague's view, is it possible that financial institutions might prefer certain political parties rather than others?
Does my colleague agree that this question should receive further consideration? 
[Interjection]
Annick Papillon: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has just raised an excellent point. 
It is not a matter of putting everything into the hands of the financial institutions but really of ensuring that everyone has an equal chance. I think this is really the solution. We will have to consider all aspects of any concrete solution that is put forward in committee in order to remedy this problem. 
There is indeed a problem. We saw it during the Liberals’ leadership race. We want to resolve this issue and we will have to hold a debate about it in committee.
John McCallum: 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.
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit surprised to learn that the Liberal Party will vote against this bill. Do the Liberals not understand that it is necessary to clarify the rules in order to limit the power held by groups or third parties over funding for political parties?
Perhaps the Liberals do not understand how serious the situation is. An affluent group will be able to give because it has more money, while a rights advocacy group for instance will not be able to donate. There is therefore a chance that a candidate will do what he or she is asked to do by the lender.
Can my Liberal colleague explain a little more clearly why the Liberals have decided to vote against the bill, which seems hypothetically to be a very good thing for our democracy? 
[Interjection]
John McCallum: 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. 
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the fact that this bill might be unfavourable to women. I do not agree at all. Financial institutions are not the only thing that matters when we talk about women becoming involved in politics. It is a social issue and one that relates to the place of women in political parties. It is much more than just a question of money; it is a question of openness, of position and of the steps being taken to promote the involvement of women. 
 What does the Liberal Party have to propose to encourage women to become more involved in politics, as the NDP has done? Is it prepared to be more open so the interests of women are represented? I can give as an example the vote on motion M-312 earlier this week. There are parties that clearly defend women's rights, such as the NDP, which voted unanimously on that motion this week.
 Can the Liberal Party acknowledge the fact that it is not just money that determines whether women become involved in politics or not? 
[Interjection]
John McCallum: 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.
Tim Uppal: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see co-operation in the House, which is somewhat unique, to move the bill forward and close the loopholes that need to be closed.
However, it is unfortunate that instead of working with the other parties to move the bill forward and close these loopholes, the members of the Liberal Party have decided to side with their insiders who have yet to pay back their unpaid debts from their leadership races. Despite six years of leniency from Elections Canada, those individuals have not paid these debts back.
Why does the hon. member not believe that it is important to take big money out of the political process? What the bill does is get unions and their big money, corporations and wealthy individuals out. It closes that loophole.
Ordinary Canadians are expected to repay loans with strict rules and guidelines. The same should apply to politicians. Why do the Liberals not believe that?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: 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.
Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that the purpose of the bill is to try to get big money out of financing. The member has mentioned he has problems with it being limited to financial institutions. What kind of entities is he talking about in terms of funding for political candidates?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: 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.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, I know that my Liberal Party colleague is someone who has a great deal of experience and a balanced outlook on life.
It is completely normal for Canadians to question the relationship between economic power and political power, and the impact that financial institutions may have on the economy.
I would like to know a little more about what my colleague would do to ensure that these types of schemes never happen again.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: 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.
Scott Andrews: Mr. Speaker, it is so important to have openness and transparency in the electoral process. Not allowing someone to get a loan from a family member would probably prevent that person from getting involved in politics.
The member is a former bank executive. Banks do not normally give loans to political parties or political individuals. It is very difficult to get a loan from a financial institution for political purposes. Maybe the member could shed some light on that.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen:  
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the whips and I believe that if you seek it you will find agreement, pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), to defer the vote on the motion to the end of government orders on Tuesday, October 2.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 1:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Canada Post Corporation Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-321, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (library materials), as reported without amendment from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Merv Tweed:  moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 98 the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 3, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
 Accordingly the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:07 p.m.)