Finance Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clause 170 agreed to on division)

Now we're at part 14 and clause 171 on page 203.

Shall clause 171 carry?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clause 171 agreed to on division)

We're now at part 15, clauses 172 to 176, on pages 203 and 204.

Shall clauses 172 to 176 carry?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clauses 172 to 176 inclusive agreed to on division)

We are now at part 16, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act. This deals with clauses 177 and 178. It is on page 205.

Shall clauses 177 and 178 carry?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clauses 177 and 178 agreed to on division)

We'll now move to part 17, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, clauses 179 and 180, pages 205 and 206.

Shall clauses 179 and 180 carry?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clauses 179 and 180 agreed to on division)

We'll now go to part 18, the Canada Elections Act. This deals with clauses 181 and 182. It is on page 206.

We'll have debate on clause 181 and clause 182.

(On clauses 181 and 182)

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm almost speechless when I look at this particular clause of what is an omnibus bill. The government has thrown in some good stuff and some bad stuff--and some appalling stuff when we look at part 18 on the Canada Elections Act.

Now, we heard in testimony yesterday from officials that, grosso modo, we are talking about subsidies going to taxpayers of about $86 million for all of the other aspects of the Income Tax Act that already exist, so that's $86 million that is already going to all political parties to support democratic participation in the election process.

We've also heard from other sources that the Senate is about a $300-million bill, and of course, as we know, there has been much controversy about the subsidies through the Senate that are used to subsidize.... Not in our case, Mr. Chair, because New Democrats have never accepted to sit in the Senate; we believe it's an archaic institution. But the Conservatives and the Liberals--particularly the Conservatives--have brought the level of taxpayer subsidy through the Senate to new heights, where senators are directly involved in partisan politics, in supporting Conservative candidates and in supporting Conservative positions.

So we have all of this money that is going to various political parties, and mostly the government--$300 million, $86 million--and what the government is choosing to do is to attack the one component that allows individual Canadians to cast their vote knowing that in some way their vote is going to have an impact on supporting the political party of their choice. That's the one that the government is moving to eliminate, to phase out, to clamp down on.

Why? Because it's the only one where there's a level playing field.

In the Senate, they're certainly not cutting back on expenses. They're certainly not saying to senators, “Don't get involved in the political process”. No, they're spending that $300 million and allowing that money to be spent for partisan purposes. They're certainly not attacking any of the other aspects of the Income Tax Act, because obviously that helps the Conservative Party as much as any other party. This particular component allows individual Canadians to step forward and to cast their vote as they choose for the party of their choice, and it allows for that to have some meaning in public financing.

Mr. Chair, to understand what the government is doing here, we can just reflect on what we see happening in other jurisdictions where money makes the big difference, where money buys political office. Here we have a situation where they are now phasing out what is the most democratic component of what was brought in.

I've had a lot of disagreements with the former Liberal government. This is one aspect of what the Liberal government did that was very positive and very democratic and levelled the playing field.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Hear, hear!

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Brison and I agree on that.

What it did was level the playing field and allow individual Canadians to have a voice. It was very credible, it was effective, and it has helped to start to address the cynicism that many people feel out there about political parties generally and about political financing.

What we've seen in the last couple of elections is more participation. More people are stepping forward. That's a very good thing. The government seems disturbed by that and is clamping down with these ill-considered and inappropriate amendments.

There is no way that we are going to support this particular section. It is mean-spirited and inappropriate, and it is fundamentally undemocratic.

I certainly hope that the members opposite, who are democratically elected, will join this party so that the three parties have a consensus in throwing out this section, so that we can have one component of political financing that is democratically based, and so the new student who is 18 years old and voting for the first time in Fort McMurray, or in southern Ontario, or in Toronto, or in Kamloops, can actually step forward knowing that they can vote for the party of their choice and that it will have a meaningful impact, not just at the ballot box, but also in the coming years.

That's something that Canadians support. I am surprised, quite frankly, and profoundly disappointed that the government is moving to rip that apart.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

I have Monsieur Mai, and then I have Mr. Brison.

Monsieur Mai, s'il vous plaît.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I'm going to be very quick. I think my colleague Mr. Julian has said everything that really is appalling about this move.

I want to say that it's more in terms of how it impacts, really. We have talked about the fact that right now people are having issues with politicians.

People are more and more disillusioned. Look at the government's attitude, right now, when they prevent debates in the House. Never before have there been so many closures on debates. And worse, the government won't even listen to the people any longer.

The population has the right to vote. We want to encourage them to vote, not deter them. Even though the electoral system is not necessarily representative, it remains that every individual must be allowed a free vote, so he or she knows he can make a difference. This is a service we offer.

Now you ask people to give money to the political party of their choice. That is antidemocratic and that is why we are going to vote against it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have Mr. Brison, and now I have Mr. Marston as well.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

From the Liberal Party's perspective, the decision to eliminate the per vote subsidy has less of an effect on us now than it would have had prior to the last election.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

To be positive about this, I believe that the government should consider raising the individual contribution limits. The initial Liberal legislation had a maximum limit of $5,000, and I think the government ought to raise the contribution limits.

I expect the Conservatives will be more interested in my proposal closer to their next leadership convention, when in fact it may be too late for them to do this on their own.

In any case, the Liberal Party is in the midst of renewal, and we will adapt ourselves to this new reality. But I think that realistically the government ought to—and we would engage constructively to—raise the contribution limits. I'm sure there are pockets of support for my proposal on the other side.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

Mr. Marston, please.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Well, Mr. Chair, I am one who has a great deal of difficulty giving the Liberals any credit whatsoever.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

For years I have struggled against the things they stood for, but in this case they were right. They took the brown bags out of the election process.

If you look at the United States, and I have raised this in committee before, you see that senators spend half their working day raising money. We have, in this particular set-up, the ability for Canadians to choose to fund a party with their votes. It's a Canadian's choice. Canadians understand that. As Mr. Julian has indicated, this helps the participation factor.

For whatever purposes--I'm not going to start maligning your purposes, but I certainly question them--that we would want to interfere with the ability to encourage Canadians to take part.... True, they should hold us accountable, absolutely: they should ask us why we perform the way we do, whatever that is, following an election, and they can use the fact that they spent some of their money and they made their choices. But to turn around and say that we're going to take this out of the structure and put our democratic processes at risk of slipping backward into those days when the brown bags were there and when influence peddling in one form or another was there....

Even though it pained me deeply to agree with the Liberals, all joking aside, that was one of the best moves that was ever made in this country and I applaud them for it. I think we are making a huge mistake here.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Marston.

I will call clauses 181 and 182: shall clauses 181 and 182 carry?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Could we have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We will have a recorded vote on clauses 181 and 182.

(Clauses 181 and 182 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)