These concerns were raised and fell on deaf ears when the Conservatives first teamed-up with the NDP on this legislation. Perhaps now that the banks are raising these very pertinent concerns they’ll be considered, although judging by the NDP and Conservative comments in the article I suspect not.
Either way, unlike past legislation this bill really is dumber than a bag of hammers, and this is what happens when you write laws that are designed to hurt your political opponents rather than improve the system. When they said accountability I didn't know they meant to the banks...
Banks want no part of political loans
STEVEN CHASE
From Friday's Globe and Mail
July 5, 2007 at 9:37 PM EDT
Ottawa — Canadian banks are growing increasingly uneasy about a recent Harper government bill that would force financial institutions to become the sole source of big loans to federal political candidates.
Senior officials at two major chartered banks say the financial sector was caught off guard by Bill C-54, which was tabled eight weeks ago.
They warn it may thrust them into an uncomfortable position of altering political careers with lending decisions and open them up to unfair criticism.
“What do [banks] do . . . with an application from a candidate with a spotty financial record?” said a senior bank official speaking on condition of anonymity.
“If they turn the candidate down, they may be influencing the democratic process,” he added.
(more)
UPDATE: Ted lays-out the argument against the legislation rather well. Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
7 comments:
“What do [banks] do . . . with an application from a candidate with a spotty financial record?”
The same thing they do to the rest of us.....ask for a co-signer and collateral that covers oh say 125% of the loaned funds.
The legislation also places strict limits on co-signors and guarantors.
A candidate has to stand on their own credit-worthiness.
So who gets the loan and, of those who get the loan, who gets the better rate with RBC?
- the guy who owns a home that he can offer as collateral, who might be looking to RBC to mortgage the addition on his Muskoka cottage, and who already has his investment portfolio with RBC and an operating line for his business (the shares of which he can also offer as additional collateral security)?
- the school teacher who volunteers at her church and with various community groups, but who rents and is relying on her teachers pension which she can't liquify for additional cash or collateral?
Honestly, how can anyone defend this legislation?
Enforce the existing rules or strengthen them instead of making it harder for ordinary Canadians to enter politics.
good catch...and photo;-). this legislation represents an extremely partisan governing coalition who is using the levers of power not in the public interest but rather for their own political self-interest. for shame.
Only the rich will run for office? Oh dear, that's a problem for the rich. They won't be able to subcontract to the Liberal party any more.
And greg ignores the point.
Perhaps he can scroll up and read Ted's post again.
...perhaps he can't.
Post a Comment