If the government wants to make political loans to party leadership candidates more transparent, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other Conservative leadership candidates should disclose who funded their campaigns before the rules were changed, say opposition MPs.“Until he actually openly discloses where he got his own money from and who paid his bills and where his minister of defence got his money from and who paid his bills, you cannot trust Stephen Harper when it comes to political money,” said Liberal MP David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Ont.).
Democratic Reform Minister of State Tim Uppal (Edmonton-Sherwood Park, Alta.) introduced Bill C-21, the Accountability with Respect to Political Loans Act, in the House last Wednesday. The bill makes changes to how party leadership candidates can finance their campaigns through loans. Unions and corporations will no longer be allowed to loan candidates money, and loans from individuals will be capped at $1,100.
Leadership candidates can still seek loans from traditional financial institutions, however. Loans from individuals that are not repaid within 18 months will be considered contributions and loans not repaid to financial institutions will be turned over to the riding association for which they will be responsible for repaying.
“The current rules on political loans do not meet the high standards of accountability, integrity, and transparency that Canadians expect in their political process,” Mr. Uppal said in a press release. “The Political Loans Accountability Act builds on our flagship Federal Accountability Act by closing a loophole allowing corporations and unions to make political loans.”
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May (Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.) said she agreed with the intent of the bill, to close loopholes, and agreed that Mr. Harper, who won the Canadian Alliance leadership in 2002 and was elected Conservative Party leader in 2004, should disclose who financed his campaign.
“Go back to the fact that Stephen Harper has never revealed who donated to his leadership campaign. Come clean with that. I’d still like to know, and I think Canadians want to know, who funded Stephen Harper to win Alliance leadership before there were rules governing leadership campaigns,” Ms. May said. “As long as the leadership campaign is run in a transparent way, I think we need to make it easier for people to enter that race, and access to loans from people who can afford to support your campaign by loaning you money with a proper pay off limit, to me is an aspect of more participation rather than less.”
Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski (Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, Sask.), Parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, told The Hill Times last week that the rules needed to be changed so that what happened during the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign can’t happen in the future. Several of the candidates financed loans of hundreds of thousands of dollars to themselves and are still trying to pay them off.
“I think we’ve seen, for an example, in years past, primarily with the Liberal leadership race a few years ago that we need legislation to deal with situations like that. We still have a situation where several of the members who ran for the leadership of the party have not repaid their loans and it’s been years later,” Mr. Lukiwski said.
“We need to come to some agreement that prevents that type of situation from occurring again. Plus, we need to bring in a regime that prevents union and corporate donations or contributions above and beyond what’s already in place for donations to individual parties and candidates. Thirdly, of course, I think we’ve got to make sure that all loans are viewed as contributions because in effect, that’s what they are. That plus a number of other items in the bill will tighten up the regime of political loans which has really been abused in the past,” Mr. Lukiwski said.
Only five Liberal leadership candidates from 2006 have paid off all of their campaign debts: current interim leader Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Ont.), former leader Michael Ignatieff, Scott Brison (Kings-Hant, N.S.), and Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul’s, Ont.) and, recently, winner Stéphane Dion (Saint Laurent-Cartierville, Que.) paid off his $30,000.
Liberal MP Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, B.C.) owes $77,500 as of Dec. 31, 2010. The others, who also lost their seats or didn’t run in the last election, are: Ken Dryden, who still owes $354,120.78; Martha Hall Findlay who owes $115,000; Joe Volpe, who owes $110,090; Gerard Kennedy, who owes $108,302.47; and Maurizio Bevilacqua who owes $33,164.08, according to Elections Canada records as of June 2011.
All of the candidates who have outstanding debts received extensions from Elections Canada to repay the loans. The chief electoral officer is allowed to grant one extension under the Elections Act, and those still with outstanding debts need to then ask a judge for an extension. All of the candidates above were granted extensions until Dec. 31, 2011. Mr. Dryden was granted an extension to June 30, 2012. If the candidates do not meet their deadlines, they would then have to go back to a judge to ask for another extension.
One of the potential problems that some of these candidates are having a hard time raising funds is because under current rules, donors are only allowed to donate the maximum $1,100 once to a candidate. Bill C-21 would change that so donors can donate to their leadership campaign each calendar year if there are still outstanding debts.
Ms. May said she agreed that corporation and union loans should be eliminated, but that loans from individuals should be maintained at higher limits.
“For a private individual to loan money to the party, that’s a very different matter. Unless the private individual is one in the same thing as a corporate entity in terms of the personal relationship, but there are a lot of dedicated individual supporters will loan, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 and know they’ll get paid back. To limit that loan to $1,100 is unreasonable,” Ms. May said.
Meanwhile, Mr. McGuinty said the Conservatives, who have introduced similar bills twice in previous sessions of Parliaments, are only changing the rules to attack the opposition parties, both of whom are currently going through leadership issues.
“Harper is a ruthless, ruthless individual who will do whatever it takes to secure a majority, keep a majority and transform Canada so on political financing, trying to eliminate corporate loans or riding association loans or party loans or whatever he’s trying to do, I take none of it at face value and I can guarantee that whatever Mr. Harper’s doing whatever final shape that bill takes … it will be designed to do one thing—seriously impede leadership contests in opposing parties,” he said, noting that he also believes that when Mr. Harper steps down as leader and before the Conservative Party enters its own leadership race, the rules will change again to favour their party.
“Mr. Harper’s now rolling out an eight to 12 year agenda for himself—that’s what they’re planning on, that’s what they’re rolling out, he won’t say it, I guarantee you he’s doing it—but if he leaves and if there has to be a Conservative leadership race, he will change the rules. I guarantee it.”
Mr. Lukiwski said however that there were no partisan undertones to the bill. He noted that the coming into effect of the bill will not be for six months after it’s passed which is past the NDP leadership convention in March. The Liberals will hold their convention in 2013.
“There’s really no partisanship whatsoever. We just think it’s the right thing to do to prevent situations we’ve seen in the past from occurring again,” he said. “I think that for people who are serious, they will be able to manage in this regime. Also, of course, there’s nothing from preventing leadership candidates from taking out loans from financial institutions at proper market rates. I think it’s a regime that’s certainly doable for all leadership candidates in the future and I think it’s something necessary that most Canadians would like to see.”
Ms. May criticized the Conservatives, however, saying that because the per-vote subsidies will be eliminated and banks and other financial institutions can no longer count on parties receiving the money to back up their loans, they will be less likely to loan the money to candidates.
Origin
Source: Hill Times
No comments:
Post a Comment