Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette:

Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak on behalf of senators from this side regarding an important bill. First of all, I would like to quote my colleague from the other side, Senator MacDonald. I will quote part of his speech on Bill S-6. He said:

The bill would create a uniform and transparent reporting regime for all loans to political entities, including the mandatory disclosure of terms and the identity of all lenders and loan guarantors.

I would like to inform my colleague that we have absolutely no problem with the concept of transparency. He went on to say:

Increased transparency for every loan means Canadians will be able to see for themselves who is borrowing from whom, when, how much and on what terms.

In my colleague's opinion, this measure will guarantee the same transparency in the case of loans and contributions. I think that is a good change that people will generally be happy both locally and nationally. Consistency and transparency will make it easier both to monitor compliance by the people subject to the rules and to enforce the legislation.

With regard to the principles, we are following the government. My colleague also said:

. . . the disclosure requirements will ensure transparency.

That is the very idea behind disclosure. He continued:

Requiring a fair market rate of interest further levels the playing field for all borrowers and lenders.

Later on, he said:

This change will be an important means of ensuring that candidates . . .

I am skipping a part here that we do not agree with.

. . . are held accountable for money they borrow in that community.

It is a basic legal principle that if we sign a loan contract, we are responsible for our signature.

The problem, honourable senators, is that only financial institutions can lend money. I searched the text in vain for any suggestion that only financial institutions have the right to influence the selection of a leadership candidate. According to which principle does only one sector of society have the right to lend money to an individual, an official leadership candidate, who signs a contract, the terms of which are usually fairly standard — two or three per cent at the moment — to the exclusion of all others? I think that this constitutes giving exceptional power, power that financial institutions are not very comfortable with.

I would add that in the current economic context, a bank is perhaps the last place a candidate would go, given the credit issues we are dealing with right now. The conditions would probably be unacceptable because right now, Canadian businesses that go to their banks — I have to help business people every week — are finding that they impose excessive conditions intended only to protect shareholders' interests, and certainly not to help a leadership candidate get involved. I am talking about female entrepreneurs in particular.

Right now, thousands of women entrepreneurs who ask banks for loans — business loans — are met with such stringent conditions that they have to go to a federal institution called the Business Development Bank of Canada because the private sector cannot lend them money at acceptable rates under conditions permitting them to continue operating their businesses.

As such, I believe that it would be a major disadvantage to restrict this to the financial sector only, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to hear from groups of women in Canada about how it would hurt them to restrict loan options to this sector alone.

I would like to reiterate the principles: transparency, reasonable conditions, acceptable terms, current interest rates.

Another rule of law, which seems to be a little different from what I learned in civil law, states that a candidate who successfully obtains a loan would automatically commit his or her riding association, if the person is a member of Parliament, or the party for the debt incurred. The only problem with that rule is that, in our legal system, the individual who is liable for a debt is the borrower. Yet in this case, it would mean putting an excessive burden on both the party and the association, which could interfere with the choice of candidate, although the candidate should be chosen by all the members of the party, and not by the authorities previously elected.

Another clause in this bill that poses a problem for me has to do with the impossibility, when the loan covers a period longer than one year, and when individuals cannot make a contribution to help that candidate pay off his or her debt.

Given that Canada is a very large country and candidates must travel from one end to the other, which can become very costly, it would be unreasonable to ask candidates to pay back their debt in just one year. Experience has shown us that it is practically impossible, so that loan could be spread over two or three years. I think the idea of having some sort of correspondence between the debt repayment and the people who can help repay it, especially with the current limit of $1,100, is reasonable, and candidates will be able to pay off their debts.

I would nonetheless like to remind the honourable senators who will be examining this bill that we have not yet seen the contribution report of the candidate for leadership of the Conservative Party who is now the Prime Minister. It is now 2009, seven years later, and we still do not know who contributed to his campaign, even though he is usually a champion of transparency. Today, all the other parties are expected to be as transparent as possible. During the most recent election campaign, the Liberal leadership candidates gave full disclosure, revealing the names of all their contributors. The process was far more transparent than the law requires.

Before we start examining Bill S-6, maybe we should ask the Prime Minister to release the list of his donors. Then we will be able to believe in the integrity and sincerity of our colleagues who want to work with us to make the process even more transparent.

I would like to insist on the fact that there were three female candidates in our party's last leadership campaign. Two of them had to quit during the campaign because of a lack of money. I believe that, in a country that cannot support good people in a democratic process, we must change the rules to ensure that those who wish to serve their country can do so. In this case, the limitation and the conditions imposed certainly go beyond transparency and actually have a perverse effect on the effective participation of female candidates who do not always have the same networks as their male colleagues.

I will close by stating that if the bill is adopted without any changes, then, as the popular saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Recent Statements from Liberal Senators