Bill C-24 (Historical)

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

Canada Elections Act

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking all hon. members who worked tirelessly on the procedure and House affairs committee for their very diligent work in reviewing Bill C-24 which was reported to the House today. Apparently they will have additional recommendations to make to us. Given that they have not been tabled, I surely will not comment on them.

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

Mr. Speaker, last week the president of the Liberal Party stated “I think [Bill C-24] fuels the cynical fires”.

If he thought Canadians felt cynical then, he can just imagine how they feel today upon discovering that, to placate his backbench, the Prime Minister has doubled Bill C-24's annual taxpayer gift to the Liberal Party to $9 million, year in and year out.

Why should taxpayers be on the hook just because the Liberals want to be the recipients of the gift that keeps on giving?

Aboriginal Affairs

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we would not remodel our home if the foundation was rotten. That would be wasteful, foolish and illogical.

Yet that is exactly what the federal government is doing with Bill C-7, the $1 billion first nations governance act.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said just a few days ago that all 634 Canadian chiefs were “self-serving bullies”. If he believes that assertion we would have to ask ourselves why he would then want to give those bullies much more power than they already have.

The bill would entrench the most expensive and least effective model of governance yet tried in first nations.

Meanwhile, the government is preoccupied with the dumb as a bag of hammers Bill C-24, the political financing act.

Rifts have developed. A legacy is at risk. However

the Liberals have resolved the issue by tapping the taxpayers for another $5 million, all because the bill would have an impact on just $1 million of Liberal fundraising.

Meanwhile, Canadian taxpayers are being charged a billion--

Committees of the House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the unanimous consent received earlier this day, I would now like to present the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning Bill C-24.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer the last question first, as to whether we need to have late night sittings, I suppose it depends on the co-operation on the part of the opposition, which is usually quite good, I must say.

Going to the substance for the next few days, we will continue this afternoon with the opposition day motion. The House does not sit tomorrow because of the Conservative leadership convention.

We are now entering June, the month when we try to wrap up the year's work and we will be consulting other House leaders on a daily, sometimes hourly basis, in order to determine the precise order of bills. However for the next few days we will be dealing mostly with report stages, third readings and consideration of Senate amendments to bills we have already passed.

The bills that will be considered next week will be, and I will start with the one on Monday, although we intend to have a minor conversation about another minor issue later, but generally speaking they will be as follows. We will start with Bill C-25, the public service bill. We will then move on to Bill C-31 respecting certain pensions for veterans and the RCMP. When that bill is completed I would hope to start Bill C-7 respecting first nations governance; and because they are all government days next week we are going to take them probably in roughly that sequence, Bill C-17 public safety; then Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies bill which is presently at third reading.

It would be my intention to then call Bill C-32, the Criminal Code amendments. When the bill is reported to the House, which hopefully will be one day next week, we could then commence Bill C-24, the political financing bill. We also have the amendments from the Senate which I understand might happen on Bill C-15, the lobbyist bill, and Bill C-10B, cruelty to animals.

At some point, we would also like to debate the second reading of Bill S-13, respecting the census, and Bill C-27, the airport bill.

As a matter of courtesy, I wish to indicate to colleagues that it is my intention to call the final supply day on or after June 12. This is not, of course, an official designation of that day at this point but that is why I say on or after, but at least to try and give an indication to colleagues in the event that they will not take other commitments at or about that particular time in order for them to be able to plan their agenda.

Political Party Financing

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

Mr. Speaker, I deduce from the hon. member's question that he completely supports Bill C-24. I commend him, because a few days ago, we felt his party was not very forthcoming.

But this new show of support for the bill pleases me enormously and also pleases all the hon. members on this side of the House. We hope to pass Bill C-24 quickly, now we have his support, and of course, the support of all the other hon. members.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader.

Bill C-24 does not treat corporations and unions in the same way. It allows for the thousands of individual franchises across the country, such as Tim Hortons, to each contribute $1,000 to a political party, but each individual union local cannot do the same thing.

I want to know if the minister will change the bill and ban unions and corporations outright. There is a hole in the legislation and I am not talking about Timbits.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question.

Everyone knows, or should know, that corporate contributions to political parties, in Bill C-24, are not permitted. The only exception is an overall $1,000 per year limit for the local candidates and party association.

A corporation or a union that has several branches, locals, addresses, outlets, wickets or even roadside stands, cannot do it more than once. It is $1,000 for the total company period, no matter how many addresses the company or union has.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24, the election financing act, has been reported in the media with very contradictory statements. The claim that small franchises have more clout than large banks is one of the comments.

Could the House leader clarify the intent of Bill C-24 and give the House a clearer picture of the effect of Bill C-24?

Justice

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that there is a perception that money can unduly influence the political process. Perhaps he should realize that his own personal schedule and his own legacy agenda are wrongfully manipulating the political process of the House.

There are some very important pieces of legislation before the House and in committee. Recent events in Toronto have focused the need for the creation of a national sex offender registry. Bill C-23 is the legislation that will create such a registry and is an issue that Canadians see as a priority.

Yet the Prime Minister does not see this as a priority. What does his own House leader put as a priority before the House? Bill C-24, the political financing act. He wants us to stay in the House until that legislation is passed, but he does not care about the sex offender registry.

The Prime Minister is more interested in pushing through vindictive legislation aimed at getting even with people within his own party, those who once referred to Bill C-24 as “dumb as a bag of hammers”, than in doing what is best for Canadians. It is no secret that the financing bill has raised a storm of controversy, but we should be dealing with things that are important to Canadians in the House, not what is important to the Prime Minister.

Political Party Financing

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

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the hon. member's support for government bills and possibly for the government in general. I am delighted by his support for Bill C-24.

I will be happy to work with him and, of course, with the leader of his party in the House to support this legislation and pass it in the very near future, so that Canadians can benefit from even better legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the minister did not have a decent answer and has to make personal attacks, but his blustering cannot change the fact that large numbers of Liberal MPs are strongly opposed to Bill C-24, and his self-serving contempt for taxpayers on Bill C-24 is completely unacceptable.

What is the story behind the story? Could it be that the House leader's appointment to the Senate is contingent on passing the bill before the June break?

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

Mr. Speaker, last night at the round table discussion on the political financing act, a number of Liberal MPs said that they were strongly opposed to the fleecing of taxpayers in order to fund political parties. They even threatened to vote against the bill, regardless of the consequences, if the House leader tried to ram it through before the summer break.

I would like to ask the government House leader this. Bill C-24 is so badly flawed and has so much opposition even from his own caucus, why the rush to push it through?

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

Mr. Speaker, the system in Bill C-24 is in part based on the systems in place in Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It provides parties with $1.50 per vote cast, which will enable them to ensure that their party offices can be run properly.

As far as I am aware, the parties have not said that this would leave them with any money left over. If the member claims this is the case for certain parties, I would like to know the names of these parties.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the House. Bill C-24 calls for the automatic payment of a quarterly allowance to established parties, which will guarantee their financial survival and enable them to amass campaign funds paid for out of the public purse.

Can the government leader explain to us why his bill does not contain any provisions to ensure that these allowances are paid solely for the purpose of reimbursing actually incurred expenses, as the Quebec electoral legislation does?