Bill C-24 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing)

Canada Elections Act

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

It's sad, that whenever there is a problem with the Liberal government its first inclination is to have the taxpayers solve the problem for it. Instead of looking within itself and asking if maybe it should have been turning down some of the donations or ensuring that some of the corporations were not eligible from the same department, and the same minister that they were donating to, for a contract. Maybe it should have been looking at that.

I want to spend my remaining time speaking on behalf of my constituents of Prince George—Peace River. I think the message I am sending today as a Canadian Alliance MP, is the message that every one of the 301 members of Parliament would be receiving from their constituents and that is with the huge issues that are facing our nation; the softwood lumber dispute that has been going on for years now, people have been laid-off cannot make ends meet, now we have a SARS health crisis in Ontario, primarily in Toronto and we have the BSE, the mad cow disaster that has hit our beef industry in western Canada but affected the economy of the entire nation and the beef industry from coast to coast.

Those are just three that come to mind. We have our military that is about to face a pretty hefty deployment to Afghanistan. All these major issues face our nation and need to be addressed, and the issue that seizes the government and Prime Minister, in his waning days of power, is taxpayer subsidization of political parties. It is absolutely unbelievable and I can say that my constituents are sick about it and I believe that when word gets out that the people from coast to coast, Canadians are tired of paying taxes to benefit politicians, they are going to speak loudly about Bill C-24 in the next election campaign.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could pick up where my colleague across the way left off because I was astounded by the statement that he made at the end of his remarks. I think it is fairly accurate to quote him as saying that he supported a few extra million dollars to guarantee the political integrity of the election process.

I find that astounding because the fact is that, with or without Bill C-24 and its generous increase in taxpayer subsidization of political parties, if people lack the moral integrity to decline influence, corporations and individuals will find ways of funnelling money to political parties and leaders to influence them. It is a fact of life. If the individual or the political party wants to be influenced, no law in the world and no amount of government taxpayer subsidization will prevent that from happening.

For the hon. member to say that he is going out on the hustings to brag about this new piece of government legislation, Bill C-24, that funnels some $22 million per year into the hands of politicians and political parties and that he is going to be proud of that during the next election campaign, it shows the extent of Liberal thinking. It blows the mind of the average overburdened taxpayer in the real world, outside of this Ottawa bubble, that the member, not only in speaking for himself, but for a lot of Liberal government members, would make such an incredible statement of support for this legislation.

Why did Bill C-24 come about? It came about because there was and there is a perception that the government led by the Prime Minister, who is just about finished his tenure as leader of our country, has been tainted by a number of scandals. The government brought forward this legislation to provide a smokescreen so that its candidates could go out in the next election campaign and say they had a lot of scandals that had the appearance of influence peddling and kickbacks, and that type of corruption. There was the perception, and pretty widely reported, that a lot of corporations over the 10 year life of this administration received substantial grants and contributions from the taxpayer and by sheer coincidence made generous donations to Liberal candidates, and in some cases Liberal cabinet ministers and/or the Liberal Party.

In order to create an illusion that the Liberals were going to address that and do something about it, they came up with Bill C-24. They now intend, as was stated here a few minutes ago, to bring forward time allocation and rush this piece of legislation through because it is the most important issue that is seizing the nation. I mean everybody in the real world, outside of Ottawa and Parliament Hill, is talking about the need for Bill C-24. Everyone is trying to figure out some way of sending $22 million to political parties every year from now on.

I do not hear that and the Canadian Alliance is the party in this place that is opposed to this legislation. We have said that repeatedly ever since it was brought forward. The government asks, why is the Canadian Alliance opposed to this? It says that taxpayers already subsidize political parties. We have a tax credit. If somebody makes a donation to a political party or a candidate, they are eligible for an income tax credit. That is true. For example, on a $200 donation it is a $150 tax credit. That has been in place for quite some time.

Political candidates, their campaigns and political parties are also eligible for rebates from taxpayers. In the case of a candidate, like myself, I ran in four election campaigns, unsuccessfully in the first one and successfully in the last three. Each and every time, if I received, which I obviously did, more than 15% of the vote, I got a 50% rebate from taxpayers of the money that was donated to me and that I in turn spent on my election campaign.

The government House leader argues, what is the big deal? Political parties, candidates, and politicians are already subsidized by the taxpayer. Well, it is a big deal. The issue is, why must we burden the taxpayer more? The argument is that somehow this particular government ended up with some egg on its face because of some pretty shady operations. It accepted corporate donations and in turn those corporations turned around and had fairly lucrative contracts. It has been revealed in the press. I am not talking about anything new. There have been a series of those over the last number of years.

Rather than restoring the integrity that the Prime Minister promised in the red book back in 1993, he is solving the problem by bringing forward a bill and having the taxpayers pay for it. Corporate donations would be outlawed above a certain amount so that there cannot be any of these large corporate donations to political parties and instead we would have the taxpayers pay for it. That would solve the problem. It is not funny.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise in this debate. I certainly would begin by saying that I support Motion No. 11, the motion we are apparently considering. What it does basically is it calls upon a committee to examine the impact and effect of the political financing changes that are contained in Bill C-24 after the next general election to see if there are any negative impacts that were not anticipated in the bill, and, obviously, that is a very positive thing to do. I do not doubt that this particular motion will have the support of the full House.

However this does give me an opportunity to express my support for Bill C-24, my almost unqualified support, because I think it is excellent legislation. It is certainly something that all parties of the House, everyone in the chamber I think, should want to support. There are some minor glitches here and there that perhaps we do not all agree with but one thing we should all agree with, including members on the opposite side, are the transparency provisions.

I have always been of the view that when it comes to public perception of the political process and how money might influence that political process, the problem is not so much that people think that the registered political parties are the ones that are easily influenced by money so much as people who might be worried that their local politicians might be influenced by large amounts of money that might be flowing around them.

Consequently, it is very important to have a transparency provision, which we have not had up until now, where we can see how much money has come into a riding association at any given time and we can see how much money is going to a particular candidate. The reason it is so important is the voters.

The voters might take a different attitude toward a candidate for re-election, shall we say, an incumbent MP, who might be discovered to have many hundreds of thousands of dollars in his riding association account when he has no need for such large sums of money. At the very most that an individual would need to run an election in this country because of the way the Chief Electoral Officer reimburses election spending, which is a 50:50 scheme, would be about $35,000. So there would be some genuine questions from the public if they were to perceive riding associations with several hundred thousand dollars.

Indeed, myself, I feel that it would be perfectly reasonable to see some limited corporate financing go to the registered political parties directly. I actually proposed an amendment at committee that would have seen corporate financing restored only to the registered parties, that is head office, to a cap of $25,000. That is not a do or die principle with me. I am content with the choice that was made by the government, and that is to provide primary subsidies through this arrangement of a certain amount of money per vote from the previous election. However I do believe that a certain amount of limited corporate financing going directly to the party would have been okay.

What I did not like was the provision in the previous version of the bill that allowed donations of $10,000 from individuals to go to riding associations and individual politicians and candidates. That is way too high. What that means, in my particular instance, in the last election I only spent $28,000, and in the previous election, I only spent $30,000, and in the one before that, I only spent $32,000. So if there was an individual who was able to donate to my riding association $10,000 per year for three or four years and then $10,000 to my campaign, I would not need any other fundraising but that and I would show a profit after the election. That I think is completely wrong.

I think the principle should be that each and every one of us should be prepared to demonstrate that we have support from grassroots people, from ordinary Canadians in our community, by having to go out and raise small amounts of money through local fundraising, like spaghetti suppers or auction sales, or from the small donations from the people in our community who we know have trust in us.

I proposed at committee stage that the $10,000 individual donation cap be lowered to $1,225. That would have been the limit for a tax receipt. The committee, in its wisdom, did not take that suggestion. It did lower the permissible individual donation from $10,000 to $5,000. I still feel that is too high, but it is a significant improvement.

In the final analysis, if we are to regain or maintain the confidence of the public--and we must not assume that people have lost confidence in their political process--we must demonstrate that we are politicians who have our roots in the community and not in big unions, large corporations or individuals in our ridings who are well heeled and can give large sums of money.

Some members of Parliament have suggested that even if they were to get a donation of $2,000, $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 or $10,000, they would not be influenced in their judgment and how they would behave once they were elected.

I suggest that is not the issue. The issue is always perception. We must demonstrate through transparency that we are not beholden to anyone because they have given us large sums of money. In the first instance, this is addressed by the transparency provisions in the bill.

One of the other issues that has come up has been the implementation date. There has been some suggestion that the implementation date should be after the next general election. I am one who absolutely rejects that. I do not feel that members of Parliament can bring in a significant reform to the political financing process and not be prepared to live by it.

I have no difficulty with going into the next election under this legislation. I have in my riding association bank account about $10,000, give or take a little. I would suggest that were the election called tomorrow, between that $10,000 and what money I can raise during the election campaign itself, I am sure I would reach the ceiling of $15,000, which, with the rebate, would enable me to spend $30,000, which is as much as I have ever spent on an election anyway. I think $32,000 was the maximum.

So, Mr. Speaker, you do not have to have lots of money in order to be re-elected in this country as a politician. I am in a contested riding. My riding was traditionally Conservative before I won it in 1993. I am not speaking as one who is in a safe riding. The reality is that all an individual needs to do in an election is to get out there, get his or her name out there, get on the podium with other candidates, and convince the people. A lot of money is not needed to do that.

I do not feel that we need to wait a year. We can hopefully pass this legislation this week and make it effective January 1, 2004, and there will be no problem whatsoever.

The other point I wished to address was raised by the member for Vancouver Island North. He was worried that there is an increased charge on the taxpayer because instead of corporate donations we will have to get more money from taxpayers to finance an election.

I would suggest to him that a few million dollars extra to guarantee the integrity of the election process in this country is money well spent. We do not want to have the experience of other nations, notably the United States, where money is so absolutely necessary for anyone to move any distance in the political process whatsoever.

I think this is excellent legislation. It is legislation that I for one will be very proud of as an MP and of the government that brought it into effect.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Motion No. 11 in Group No. 2, as have other political parties in the House this afternoon.

The reason this report has been permitted is to deal with some amendments that were deemed to be inadmissible at report stage, that the Speaker has ruled as being out of order and others that require royal recommendation.

When the committee studied the bill under the rubric of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we decided that we should prepare a separate report to signal possible areas for legislative change and/or future study. I think this particular motion is supported by the majority of parties, if not all the parties, in the House.

It is important to note that this is the most significant reform of political financing in Canada since the Election Expenses Act was introduced 29 years ago during the minority government of Pierre Trudeau and when the New Democratic Party held the balance of power.

The legislation before us would ban political donations to political parties. It would allow minor contributions to candidates running for nomination, and to electoral district associations, but no more money would be allowed to be donated by corporations and trade unions to the political party of their choice.

It would also require additional reporting requirements for constituency associations. It would limit individual contributions now to $5,000. When the bill was first tabled it was $10,000 and I think it was a unanimous motion of the committee to reduce the amount to $5,000 per individual per year.

It also would regulate the nomination and leadership campaigns of some parties. As an aside, I would say that this is a matter of physician heal thyself because in fact the New Democratic Party, and I believe some other parties in the House, have very strict limits on leadership campaigns and on nominating campaigns. I know members on the government side do not and there have been some embarrassing results flowing from that.

For example, in the last New Democratic Party leadership campaign none of the candidates for election were allowed to spend more than $750,000. There was preliminary reporting of how that money was raised prior to the vote taking place. There was full disclosure. It can be done but the government has seen fit to, instead of operating on a party by party basis or doing it within its own party, bring it in under the election financing amendments.

Certainly, at the bottom of all this, or under the pillar of it, as a result of the absence of corporate and trade union contributions, there is enhanced public financing of the political system.

Some of the concerns some members of the committee had and which we want to see addressed in this special or separate report, had to do with administrative burdens and cost of compliance that would accrue to constituency associations. There is no question that there will be a greater burden of transparency and a need for better record keeping that will have to flow to the Chief Electoral Officer on a regular basis from riding associations.

There was also some concern expressed whether volunteers, with all the requirements that would henceforth be required and forthcoming, would throw their hands up and say that it was too much paperwork and that they were out of there. We need to look at that very carefully.

One of things the member for North Vancouver raised was a concern that the audit fee limit of $1,500 was too low and that some auditors, at the conclusion of an election campaign, or doing the report for a candidate or an electoral district, would be subsidizing the process. We want to look at that as well because I do not think there was anybody who thought that auditors ought to be subsidizing the process. If the figures are too low, let us amend it.

The member for Ottawa West—Nepean, as I recall, was concerned about non-monetary contributions, specifically people who have particular skills in an election campaign and volunteer their services, but because of their particular skills are prohibited from working on certain elements or aspects of the campaign. I think of someone who perhaps operates a phone bank in his or her day job and would, under the current rules, be technically prohibited from doing that as a volunteer in a political operation. We think that needs some examination and clarification. Hopefully this committee or the son of this committee will look at that issue.

One of the issues that has been dealt with in this go around was the matter of the $1.50 per vote per year being based on the results of the last general election. Certainly we heard from witnesses who were concerned that all those eggs should not be in that one basket, that perhaps it should be either a combination of rolling polls that have taken place since the election or perhaps based on a party's membership together with the vote that the party received in the previous election.

I must say that the notion of a poll leaves me stone cold because there are times when governments have to take difficult decisions. I would think it would be another excuse not to make a difficult decision if someone said, “We cannot do that because we have a poll coming up next week and it may do some serious damage in terms of the amount of money that we will have to fight the next election campaign”.

I think on balance the $1.75 per vote per year based on what was received in the last election campaign may not be the best but it is the best that the committee could come up with. However I do not support the increase from $1.50 to $1.75.

As the minister responsible made very clear when he was before the committee at the first meeting on this issue, at $1.50 per vote per year no party would be negatively impacted. All parties would be at least revenue neutral, if not slightly ahead of the game. I fail to see what has happened in the intervening couple of months that now suggests it should be $1.75, a raise of 25¢.

A couple of other issues were raised before in the first group of amendments: the differential treatment of franchises and corporate entities, and the need for equal treatment of union locals versus corporate franchises. This is something that I think is a fundamental flaw in the bill. Yes, it is true that trade unions and corporations have been restricted in the amount of money they can give and to whom they can give that money. However, having said that, there is no question that corporations will be able to give significantly more because the way the legislation is written trade union locals are generally excluded from making a contribution to a local candidate or a local riding association. I think that is indefensible and I fail to understand why that cannot be altered.

Another area deals with free time broadcasting. The Broadcast Act was out of the purview of the committee and out of the purview of this bill because the amendments deal only with changes to the elections financing act and the Income Tax Act, but several significant witnesses, if I may put it that way, came before the committee and talked about the way that the cost of elections could be reduced if in fact there were more free time broadcasts allowed during an election campaign. They pointed to the British system as an example of that. We would hope that this could be looked at in a further go around by the committee that is looking at the impact of Bill C-24.

The third party spending on election campaigns is something that is fundamental. If the third party is defeated or overruled at the Supreme Court then all of what we are doing here on Bill C-24 stands for naught. Therefore we will have to pay close attention to that, as will the committee as it goes forward with the review of these procedures.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, presently if somebody makes a contribution of $100 to a political party, the Government of Canada will reimburse that individual $75. In essence the government has increased the base from $200 to $400, therefore encouraging more contributions by the public at large to political parties.

In this proposed legislation the government will allow each registered political party to receive $1.75 per vote received in an election in recognition of the significant impact that the proposed prohibition on corporate and union donations will have on parties. This allowance will help political parties to run in an election without having the extra burden of having to raise the necessary funds. All they will have to do is ensure that they have a sound policy statement and a sound platform. If they can get the necessary support from the public, they will be able to generate more revenues.

My colleagues on the opposition side should argue that this is extremely positive news for all involved and for all members of all political parties since it will allow them to sell their ideas to the public and they will not have to chase nickels and dimes.

As a transitional measure, parties will receive the 2004 allowance in a lump sum as soon as possible after the coming into force of the bill, instead of quarterly arrangement about which the bill speaks.

Public financing in general, and in particular the public allowance, was probably the issue that drew more attention than any other issue during the public hearings. For the most part, it was a very positive discussion and people in general recognized the value of public financing, although they had different ideas about how the formula for providing the allowance should work. Others had already spoken about the merits of the bill and they had specific recommendations and adjustments to make to the bill. The committee and the government were very receptive to some of those suggestions.

With the remainder of my time, I would like to speak a bit on some of the benefits of Bill C-24.

It is important to recognize public financing in this debate, and how important it is when it comes to the political financing equations. I think we all agree that political parties are critical to the functioning of our democracy. Without strong political parties and party organizations, a healthy democracy would not function. Political parties in general perform a key role in mobilizing the voters, representing the views of all groups in society, as well as formulating policies, policy alternatives and recruiting future leaders.

Parties offer support to the democratic process and democratic government. They provide a key link between state and society. In view of the important role parties play in so many aspects of our democratic system, it seems obvious that they should be supported by the state. Otherwise, we run the risk that parties will be severely limited in undertaking their critical role in our democracy.

Political parties play a key role as structures through which citizens may participate in our political system. Throughout our history, parties have been the key institution through which citizens can express their political opinions and become actively involved in the governing of our society.

If there is a substantial variation in the resources received by parties, we run the risk that a perception will arise that some organizations have undue influence. The result can be that citizens become disaffected and reduce their linkage to parties and our democratic system in general.

By regulating the financial resources that contributors may provide to parties, in combination with public funding as is being proposed in the bill, we can ensure that a level playing field is created for all participants.

Finally, we must recognize the enormous cost of funding a political party in a modern democracy. Everyone in the House is aware that the cost of running an effective party demands the necessary resources in order to support it.

I want to urge my colleagues, in the name of democracy and in the best interest of the public at large, to pass the bill as quickly as possible.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this is most unfortunate. I have had consultations with House leaders of all parties and have been officially notified that this bill will not go through at all unless I proceed with the following motion.

I am informing you formally then, Mr. Speaker, that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-24. It is more about the third reading stage of Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing).

Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and the disposal of the proceedings at the said stages.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honour to speak on this very important piece of legislation, Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, political financing. I would like to focus my remarks on the public financing measures contained in the bill which have attracted a great deal of attention in the discussion today.

During the discussion of this issue, both in Parliament as well as during the public hearings held by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I believe it has been well established that the measures contained in this bill build on a long tradition in Canada, a tradition of public financing of the electoral system.

This tradition goes back to 1974 with the Election Expenses Act. Among other items, that legislation introduced public financing through post-election reimbursement to qualifying parties and candidates and income tax credit for contributions to registered parties and election candidates. What we are doing is building on what we already started back in 1974. However since that time all parties in the House of Commons have benefited from these measures.

It has also been well established that public funding is not new in Canada. In fact all provinces provide some form of public funding. Three provinces in particular, New Brunswick, Quebec and Prince Edward Island, provide for a public allowance. It is also particularly notable that Quebec has provided a public allowance since 1975 and the system is well received by Quebec residents, a fact which was underlined by the Quebec electoral officer when he appeared before the committee during its hearing on this bill. It is also well known that most democracies provide political participants with some form of public financing.

If we were to look at the public financing measures in Bill C-24, we would see that, as I indicated a little earlier, it builds upon what we already had set up before. However it does change the percentage of contribution by the government from that of 22% to 50%, with a one-time reimbursement at 60% for the next election to assist parties as a transitional measure.

Polling expenses also would be added to the definition of registered election expenses and the ceiling for eligible expenses would be raised accordingly. The threshold for candidates to qualify for reimbursement of part of their election expenses would be lowered from 15% to 10%. I am sure members would agree with me that for at least two political parties in the House, some of their candidates as well as their parties, would be able to qualify under those members.

The rate of reimbursement of candidate election expenses as well would increase from 50% to 60%. An amendment to the Income Tax Act would double the amount of individual political contribution that is eligible for a 75% tax credit from $200 to $400, and all other brackets of the tax credit would be adjusted accordingly. As it is now, every time we give a $100 contribution to a political party, the Government of Canada reimburses $75 of that. Therefore, the--

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to speak on Bill C-24, as I am fundamentally opposed to much of what is included in Bill C-24. I think this legislation strongly favours incumbency. It strongly and particularly favours the governing party. Having the money going to political parties determined by the results of the last federal election is like having one's mortgage based on the value of one's last house. It makes no sense at all.

I do not like the anti-democratic nature of this legislation in the fact that we lose any right as individual taxpayers to control where the government subsidy goes in terms of political parties. Currently if an individual Canadian wishes to choose to support one political party or the other, that is his or her choice. Through the tax system there is a subsidy, but the choice lies with the individual Canadian. We are taking that choice away from individual Canadians and instead using a highly bureaucratized method of financial support, taxpayer support, for political parties, not based on individual taxpayer or voter choice but based on a ridiculous, arbitrary decision of the previous electorate. It makes absolutely no sense to deny individual citizens the right to choose where their money goes in terms of the support of political parties.

Currently, if individual Canadians support the Progressive Conservative Party, the Alliance or the Bloc Québécois, that is their choice. We are taking that choice away from them with this legislation and instead just basing it on the arbitrary result of the last federal election. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I am in favour of caps of perhaps $10,000 on corporate and union donations and full disclosure. I think there is an inherent check and balance in full disclosure. In fact, as long as there is a cap on corporate and union donations and there is full disclosure, I do not think there is any problem whatsoever in having both unions and corporations contribute to political parties.

I will give members some examples. Twenty-five per cent of my party's revenue stream comes from corporate donations. Special events and dinners account for 35% of our revenue, and of that, 90% comes from corporations. There is no real discussion on how this revenue would be replaced. Effectively taking the choice away from individual corporations and unions simply on an arbitrary assessment based on the results of the last election makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Individual Canadians ought to have a right to determine where their financial support for the political process ought to go. Individual corporations ought to have that right as well.

We must not forget that corporations pay taxes. Denying corporations and unions an opportunity to participate in the process in a direct and fully disclosed way and in a transparent way will simply lead to them finding other ways to support the political process which may be less transparent.

For any number of reasons, this legislation is, as the president of the Liberal Party of Canada has said, as crazy as a bag of hammers, and I do not often agree with the president of the Liberal Party of Canada. It certainly does not address the real need for political finance reform in Canada. Clearly, addressing disclosure and putting caps on corporate and union participation or contributions would make sense.

However this anti-democratic legislation, which further divides Canadians from the political process and provides a huge head start based upon incumbency to the current governing party, will further divide Canadians from the political process.

If we look over the last 30 years, but particularly over the last 10 years, Canadians have drifted away from politics. This legislation will divide Canadians further from the political process. I am strongly opposed to the legislation and would urge, as many members on the government's side who have also raised these issues, the government to reconsider this legislation which is fundamentally flawed, anti-democratic and unfair, not just to those involved directly in the political process, as members of Parliament and as candidates, but is fundamentally unfair to Canadian voters and the Canadian taxpayer as well.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate on the only motion in Group No. 2, which basically instructs Parliament that in addition to reviewing the report from the Chief Electoral Officer it also conduct a review of the effects of the act in plain language.

I agree with the previous speaker that this is a very important part of the parliamentary process. I know that all members are working diligently or have in the committee and even in debate now to raise points which have been discussed very substantively through the House.

I think Canadians should understand that the provisions of the bill have been well known for some time and that consultations have taken place throughout all the parties. There have also been briefing sessions as well, even at committee where large numbers of members participated and represented the interests of their constituents and indeed their parties.

The previous speaker also mentioned that he felt the bill would pass very quickly and with large numbers. I think that is an interesting speculation. However, I must admit, having participated in some of the discussions, that I know there are some concerns. Some people would like to have seen things a little differently. Even earlier I did speak about the net impact of having any corporate or union donations at all and what that might mean in terms of administrative cost savings, et cetera.

These are questions that I know were considered, but I think members will also know there seems to be a very strong consensus that the principle of the bill is sound and that this change in the electoral financing in itself is not going to totally resolve the perception of the public with regard to the influence that corporations and unions have on elected officials.

Today I believe there are seven motions which were selected for debate, grouped into three groups, but there were some fifteen motions presented at report stage by members. A number of them were rejected in a ruling by the Speaker for a variety of reasons, which he laid out. It is quite relevant to note that there are a couple of motions here which are quite substantive. One report stage motion had to do with the suggestion to increase the donation limit for corporations or unions from $1,000 to $5,000. In fact, then, any donor, whether it be an individual or a corporation or union, would be at $5,000. That presumes the report stage motion decreasing individual donations down to $5,000 is in place.

The other motion rejected by the Speaker was that the in force date of the bill be January 1, 2005 rather than, as the bill presently states, January 1, 2004. There have been substantial discussions about whether or not, and I think even the speaker prior to me mentioned this, the system could prepare itself for the next election in time, knowing how diligent the Chief Electoral Officer has been in the past to make sure that members and all those who are interested in seeking public office have up to date rules guiding the conduct of elections and indeed of nominations. As we know, the bill even impacts the maximum that someone could spend on a nomination meeting, which is going to be linked to the spending of a prior campaign. There are some issues. I think that for a large number of people an in force date delayed to January 1, 2005 would have been preferable in terms of making sure that riding associations and candidates, regardless of whether they are currently elected or want to seek election in the next campaign, have an opportunity to make plans.

I would also mention at this time that under our current system of elections we in fact have a system that is substantially publicly funded already, and the reason we have a publicly subsidized electoral process in Canada at the federal level and indeed at the provincial level is so that all Canadians regardless of their means have an opportunity to run and to be competitive in an electoral campaign. I think that is extremely important. The principle of a publicly supported electoral process makes sure that people cannot buy elections by overspending or spending way beyond what someone of normal means would be able to either contribute themselves or raise through a fundraising process. This principle of maintaining the public support means that we have a healthy democratic system of integrity, an overall process which I think members will know and Canadians should know is much different from that of the United States.

We know that in the United States congressmen are elected for two years. They spend one year trying to do their job but the second year is spent totally on fundraising for the next campaign, which could cost millions of dollars. Imagine what it would be like in Canada if people could actually raise and spend millions of dollars trying to get themselves elected to Parliament. It does not happen in Canada. It means that we are not beholden to large money. I think that is the principle here. Even to the extent that there are limits on the current contributions, these changes being proposed in Bill C-24 in fact reinforce and basically reduce corporate influence through their contributions, substantially from even where they exist now.

Canadians should take great pride in our electoral process in terms of the fact that there is not the same kind of situation we have in the U.S. and in many other countries, where large dollars way in excess of the value of the job are spent simply to get elected. This is where I think we see some of the public cynicism with regard to elected office, because the public sees and hears about these large amounts of money being spent by congressmen and senators in their electoral races in the United States.

Canada has nothing to be ashamed of in terms of our electoral process. Having been a candidate in four general elections, I know how difficult it is to raise money. I had a chance, though, and as there is no family money., I was raising money predominantly from friends and acquaintances and those who believed that I would make a credible candidate. Members will know that the vast majority of people here are elected not for what they promise to do but rather because of what they have done, particularly in individual constituencies, before coming here. Members come here on their reputations. Money really does not have a great deal to say.

I know that members have also argued it is not the ordinary backbenchers who are the difficulty. The perception is with regard to cabinet ministers or others, maybe, who have important responsibilities over and above being just a member of Parliament. I would say that the motion in Group No. 2 is a valuable motion. It is certainly to be expected that we would continue to do an ongoing review of our electoral financing process to make absolutely sure that should there be any motions here that maybe should have been considered this time around, they will get reconsidered after the next election, we will have a process that will constantly be looking at this, and the public will also have an opportunity to have input into that process as we move forward.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is one part of Bill C-24 that the Canadian Alliance can support because it does not use a whole bunch of taxpayer money to fund the activities of a political party. It is designed simply to review the effects of Bill C-24 after the next election and for us to have a look to see whether it worked.

I fully expect that it will not have worked because this bill is so complicated. During committee stage, the government introduced amendment after amendment, technical correction after technical correction to fix all the problems that it did not find while it was writing the bill. I am absolutely certain, and I know this concern was shared by many of the other members on the committee with me, that we will find there are all manners of problems in the bill, all sorts of difficulties that we will not know about until the bill comes into force.

That was certainly one of the reasons why we proposed during committee that the bill not come into effect until January of 2005. That way we would have had the opportunity to go back and discuss in more detail with our electoral district associations, as they are now called, or riding associations as they used to be, and our party hierarchy how this bill would affect the way they would operate. If we had the chance to do that, we might discover all sorts of hidden problems that had not been anticipated. We would then have had the chance to deal with them before the bill came into effect.

However the government is determined to steam full ahead and get this bill through by tomorrow night. I am certain that will happen. I am fully expecting that the minister will stand in the House later today and move some sort of motion to limit the debate here so that he gets his way, or the Liberals can take a message to Mr. Stephen LeDrew, the president of their party, to let him know how much money they will get in their coffers.

I have done a little calculation based on the change being proposed by the government to raise the subsidy from $1.50 to $1.75 for each year for each vote that the government receives. The Liberal Party of Canada would receive $9,206,679.78. That is a huge amount of money and that will come to Liberal Party in a nice, big fat cheque compliments of the taxpayers, like it or not, by the end of January 2004. I am sure the minister is over there already with a big, new shovel, gold plated of course. He is right at the treasury trough ready to start shovelling that money out and into the Liberal coffers. They will be receiving $9,206,000 give or take.

We also are in favour of review of this bill after the next election, because I think, and my opinion is shared by a number of the witnesses who came to committee, that this bill is wide open to charter challenges. Unfortunately, the minister has a history of introducing to this place legislation which is problematic. Everything he has ever introduced here has cost the taxpayers an absolute fortune and/or a second fortune in legal challenges and the cost of court cases.

One of the most well known is the third party advertising challenge, commonly known by members of the public as the gag law. Three times governments over there have introduced this gag law to try to prevent ordinary Canadians from spending their own money to raise issues during election campaigns.

It is a well known fact, which the government throws at us all the time as if we would be embarrassed, that our leader was instrumental during his time with the National Citizens' Coalition in moving that case along to ensure that Canadians had the right to spend their own money to fight issues during election campaigns. I am proud of him and what he did in that role at the NCC, and we are looking forward to the ruling from the Supreme Court confirming that these gag laws are not to be permitted.

The government is unfortunately relying on a Quebec ruling to give it confidence that somehow this third party advertising will be struck down. The minister constantly quotes the Quebec court ruling in terms of referendum legislation where the Quebec court ruled that the yes side and the no side should be subject to restrictions during referendums so that we could not have these third parties on the outside also spending money on a yes or no side.

The flaw in the minister's argument is to try to compare a referendum to an election. They are nothing like one another. In a referendum we have a question which has a yes or a no answer. Therefore obviously there is some logic behind setting up rules on the amount that can be spent by each side.

When we talk about an election, there are an absolute multitude of issues that come forward and it is not necessarily true that the issue the government wants on the stage or, frankly, the issue the opposition wants on the stage is the issue that the taxpayers and voters want on the stage.

The members of the Canadian Alliance found ourselves in astonishing agreement with the Quebec representatives of unions in Quebec during the committee work. They came forward and said as part of their testimony to our committee that they supported the third party advertising. They found themselves in a situation during the recent Quebec election where one of the parties said what this union representative group felt were derogatory remarks about unionism in Quebec. They wanted to be able to advertise in the newspapers and send out letters contradicting what was said by the party. They were not allowed to because of the third party restrictions in Quebec.

They hope, as we do, that these third party rules will be struck down permanently because they realize, coming from the left, just as we do from a free enterprise side, that it is important to have the right to freedom on expression, especially during an election campaign.

The reason I have mentioned all this is it is extremely likely, I would say 99% certain, that the Supreme Court will agree with the courts in Alberta and will make it impossible for the government to have a gag law. It will open it up for third party spending, in which case there will be a tremendous impact on this bill. If and when third party advertising is opened up wide, then most of the provisions in this bill, which put restrictions on everyone from candidates to parties in terms of the spending, will be irrelevant and it will require a major overhaul virtually before the ink is dry after passage.

It is very important that we do have that review, and we are very pleased to support that motion when it comes forward for the vote, probably later today I would think the way things are moving at the moment.

I will just briefly mention that because the bill is set to come into effect on January 1, 2004 there is very little time for riding associations, candidates and so on, to learn all the new rules in the bill. It really is an extremely complex bill.

During committee I tried, on behalf of the official opposition, to amend the bill to simplify the reporting requirements for riding associations, electoral districts as they are now called, because of the amount of administration that would be required by this new bill. Unfortunately, the government saw fit to defeat my suggestions, which is unfortunate.

I think many of us will have difficulty finding volunteers to carry out the extent of administration that will be required by this bill. Once a year riding associations will have to put in very extensive reports about their source of revenues and the number of donors they had. They will have to keep pretty comprehensive records about who has donated when and where.

I will give the government credit for accepting one amendment on behalf of the Canadian Alliance which makes it a little easier for riding associations to pass the hat at an AGM. The way the government had this bill set up, if anyone put in more than $10, they would need a receipt and we would have to keep track of how many dollars they contributed over the year.

The government did agree to accept an amendment I put forward which raises that to $25. At least it makes it a little more simple now for electoral district associations at an AGM to pass the hat without having to worry about keeping track of every little $10 bill that goes into that hat.

The government would not agree to make that a non-reporting activity. It still will be necessary for the electoral district association to report the type of event that it was, the number of people who attended, how much money was collected and approximately the number of people who were there. It is still a bit complicated but better than it was.

I will say that I could speak all day on the bill. I have 49 pages of notes. It is extremely complex. In wrapping up on this round, I will confirm that we do support this motion, which would allow for a revision of the bill immediately after the next election.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on debate on Motion No. 11, the only amendment in Group No. 2.

Motion No. 11 would add a new section, 536.1, which would oblige a committee of the House to consider the effects of Bill C-24 when it receives the report of the chief electoral officer in which he makes recommendations following the first general election, following the coming into force of the bill.

The chief electoral officer makes two types of reports after each election. In one of them, required pursuant to section 535 of the Canada Elections Act, he or she makes recommendations on ways in which to improve the act in the electoral process. As part of its review of this report, a committee of the House would be mandated to study the effects of Bill C-24. In other words, that would be the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This obligation should ensure that there is an opportunity for parliamentarians to review the effects of Bill C-24 and make recommendations to the government.

We did have considerable discussion during the committee consideration stage of the bill about the various issues and elements of the bill and the impact they might have. Certainly there was an interest among members of the committee to have a process whereby the bill would be reviewed on a regular basis.

Motion No. 11 would mandate a committee of the House to review the bill after each election, giving members an opportunity to consider how the various elements of the bill have impacted, not only on the parties,but also the provincial and territorial associations, riding associations, candidates and leadership candidates. That will not happen every year, but from time to time there are leadership races. This has been an unusual year with the number we have had. However there are those races from time to time and I am sure the members would want to consider a variety of provisions of the bill and how they have impacted on the parties in the country after the next election.

This motion will provide for that. I think members generally would want to see this. Certainly that was my impression from the discussion in our committee, and I strongly support the motion.

I know there are members on my own side who have expressed some concerns about elements of the bill. There are those who feel that the limit on contributions from corporations and unions should be zero and there are others who feel it should be raised, for instance, to $5,000.

There are many things of that sort that can be looked at after the next election. It is an opportunity then to look at what the impact of the bill has been on election financing for the parties and what problems, or perhaps what successes, they have had under the new regimen.

Obviously, it is a brand new way of operating in terms of the financing of political parties in our country, or it is a big shift certainly. We know that 60% of political party financing is already public financing. This will increase it. Still there are major changes in the way parties and candidates can raise money. It will obviously be important for us to assess those changes and assess what impacts the new regimen have had. Motion No. 11 would allow the House to do that after each election.

I urge all colleagues in the House to support the motion.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, for the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That Bill C-24 be amended by adding after line 31 on page 99 the following new clause:

“63.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 536:

536.1 After the submission to the House of Commons of a report under section 535 in relation to the first general election following the coming into force of this section, any committee of that House to which the report is referred shall, in addition to considering the report, consider the effects of the provisions of this Act concerning political financing that came into force on the same day as this section.”

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize again the question that has come up on Bill C-24 from my constituents which the government should answer. The bottom line is simply, why should the taxpayers pay their hard-earned money to the political parties? That is the question they are asking.

Before question period I was talking about the bureaucracy that will be created by the bill. As my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley said, community associations would have to put up with this bureaucracy and they are volunteers. Why are we placing such a huge burden on volunteers? Are they to become partial bureaucrats, unpaid bureaucrats, because they are in favour of the ruling party and they can get money out of this? The people of Calgary East are asking those questions.

In conclusion, the people of Calgary East are opposed to the bill. Therefore, I would like to make the point on their behalf that I am also opposed to the bill.

Political Party Financing

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today the government tabled amendments to Bill C-24 that will raise the annual per vote subsidy to political parties from $1.50 to $1.75. The shortfall caused by banning corporate and union donations will now be entirely made up by public funds and an extra $1.2 million in taxpayer money will go every year to the Liberal Party of Canada.

Why does the Prime Minister insist on digging deeper into the pockets of Canadian taxpayers in order to line the chest of his party?

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, apparently the new announcement is the Rolling Stones concert. That is after the Prime Minister did the Chinese restaurant photo op. Frankly, this crisis needs more than dinner and theatre.

The Prime Minister's real priority appears to be getting more money so that the Liberals can pass Bill C-24. This seems to take precedence over the devastation that is affecting rural Canadians in the beef industry and the health care crisis that is gripping the city of Toronto and affecting its economy.

My question once again is simple. Why should Canadians want a PM who does not deal with their problems but instead needs money to buy the support of his own party?