Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2007-12-05 17:20:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"812863\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, I note, from the comments of my Bloc colleague, that there seems to be a consensus growing, among the opposition parties at least, that we do not accept this idea that the default position should be to the federal party if in fact candidates default or fail to pay back their loans in the accepted period of time. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"812864\" data-originallang=\"en\">We all come from the same premise that a loan that is not paid back is deemed a donation and this was a loophole that should have been plugged.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"812865\" data-originallang=\"en\">The point I want to make is that sometimes in a riding where candidates have very little opportunity, they may see in their mind that they have a possibility of winning and spend far too much money in that campaign. In a campaign that may have warranted a $10,000 token amount, some candidates may borrow the full $80,000 and run a full campaign even though they have no hope of winning and in fact fail.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"812866\" data-originallang=\"en\">I am wondering if a change could be made to the amendment proposed where if the federal parties were to have the right to veto situations like this, would it then be acceptable for the party to be the co-signer or the guarantor of the loan for candidates. Or, does the member's party feel that it is a complete non-starter as an issue?</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"812863\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, d'apr\u00e8s ce qu'a dit mon coll\u00e8gue du Bloc, on dirait qu'un consensus est en train de se d\u00e9velopper, du moins parmi les partis d'opposition. Nous n'acceptons pas cette id\u00e9e que le parti f\u00e9d\u00e9ral devrait automatiquement \u00eatre tenu responsable si les candidats ne remboursent pas leurs pr\u00eats dans le d\u00e9lai pr\u00e9vu.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"812864\" data-originallang=\"en\">Nous nous fondons tous sur la m\u00eame pr\u00e9misse selon laquelle un pr\u00eat qui n'est pas rembours\u00e9 est consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme un don. C'est une \u00e9chappatoire qui aurait d\u00fb \u00eatre corrig\u00e9e.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"812865\" data-originallang=\"en\">Par ailleurs, il arrive que des candidats ayant tr\u00e8s peu de possibilit\u00e9s de l'emporter s'imaginent avoir des chances. Ils se mettent alors \u00e0 d\u00e9penser beaucoup trop. Dans une campagne qui aurait pu justifier des d\u00e9penses de 10 000 $, certains candidats qui n'ont aucune chance de l'emporter peuvent emprunter autant que 80 000 $ pour faire une v\u00e9ritable campagne, et ne pas \u00eatre \u00e9lus.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"812866\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je me demande s'il y aurait moyen de modifier l'amendement. Si les partis f\u00e9d\u00e9raux pouvaient s'opposer \u00e0 ce qu'un de leurs candidats agisse ainsi, serait-il alors acceptable, pour le parti, d'endosser ou de cautionner un pr\u00eat \u00e0 un candidat, ou le parti du d\u00e9put\u00e9 croit-il plut\u00f4t que c'est une question qu'il ne vaut m\u00eame pas la peine d'examiner?</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2007/12/5/pat-martin-6/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/pat-martin/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/2515/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "2250083",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Government Orders",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Canada Elections Act",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "h3": {
        "en": "Motions in Amendment",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2007/12/5/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2007%2F12%2F5%2F"
    }
}