Bill C-24 (Historical)

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

Canada Elections Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-24 on the financing of political parties.

From the outset, the Bloc Quebecois indicated to the government that the bill on political party financing was a step in the right direction. I emphasize, one step.

The Quebec political party financing legislation is recognized in virtually all democratic societies throughout the world. It was introduced and enacted by the government of René Lévesque, and has proven its worth. It is “the” law concerning political party financing by the public, as far as respect of democracy is concerned in any democratic country.

The Prime Minister of Canada has made no attempt to conceal the fact that he owes to René Lévesque a good portion of his recommendations in Bill C-24 on political party financing.

Why do we consider this just one step in the right direction? Public financing should exclude any corporate funding, and this bill allows limited corporate contributions.

With all the scandals that have hit this government, it was time to do a proper cleanup, if I may put it that way. Yet funding from companies and labour unions is still allowed, to a maximum of $1,000.

Members will say that this is a dramatic decrease, except that the matter of corporations is so complex that, with parent companies, subsidiaries and associate companies—there are several divisions now—companies could make a financial contribution of much more than $1,000. Major protests will have been avoided once again. Why not simply have abolished financing by business? That would have sent a clear message that the only acceptable source of political party financing in Canada, as in Quebec, is individuals.

When we talk about financing by individuals, we are talking about contributions that individual men and women can make. In this bill, one contribution is permitted. Normally, the amount of the contribution is limited, but you will agree that $10,000 is not much of a limit. In Quebec, the ceiling on contributions by individuals is $3,000; that is the amount a man or a woman can give to a political party.

This bill would allow an individual to make a contribution of up to $10,000. How many individuals, I wonder, have the means to give $10,000, except company presidents, their families and board members, those who can slip through the back door what they cannot get through the front door.

That is why the higher the ceiling on financial contributions, the bigger the problems we face, because big business can make large contributions and consequently influence the decisions of elected representatives indirectly.

The Bloc Quebecois is recommending that we stick as close as possible to Quebec's ceiling of $3,000. We want Parliament to reduce contributions by individuals so that not only the wealthiest families are financing political parties, as this would cause people to say that, once again, the rich control democracy.

As far as we are concerned, this $10,000 limit should be reviewed and hopefully lowered significantly.

Moreover, this bill is indicative of what is going on on the political scene, especially within the Liberal Party of Canada. This bill will limit corporate and private contributions to leadership campaigns. There is a leadership race in the Liberal Party of Canada. Oddly enough, the bill will not apply to that leadership race.

Once again, the government is trying to redeem itself, by saying, “Look, we are going to become reasonable. In view of the recent scandals, we will try to clean up the legislation on the financing of political parties”. But that will not clean up the race for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Again, this is indicative of what is happening in this Parliament, and this is why people are losing confidence in their elected representatives. There are good things in there. I say it again, the Bloc Quebecois honestly believes this bill is a step in the right direction. But why not make it applicable right away to every election that will take place in Canada, including the race for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada?

Of course, only the Liberal political strategists will tell you why. This could jeopardize or probably considerably reduce the lead of some candidates. But of course this is an issue the government does not want people to deal with or even discuss, since the bill will only come into force on January 1, 2004, provided it is given speedy approval by the House.

Members will have understood that the Bloc Quebecois will fight for the principles, namely we will try once again to lower voluntary contributions to a level more respectful of every citizen in Quebec and Canada. However, we will not wage a war on principle and we will not systematically oppose the bill.

The House can count on the cooperation of the Bloc Quebecois, which is always proud to participate in cleaning up the practices that have tainted this Parliament for such a long time. I repeat that this political financing legislation is a step in the right direction. The legislation ensures that the government will provide financing to each political party proportionate to the number of votes obtained.

We have no problem with this. We have the same thing in Quebec. We will therefore support this type of government financing, which ensures that all parties who do reasonably well in the election will have adequate funding, without any interference and solicitation by major players, corporations or CEOs.

We often find out that some political parties are financed by big business. Clearly, I repeat, the Bloc Quebecois feels that this bill is a step in the right direction, not to mention that we would like all financing to come from individuals; companies should no longer be allowed to make contributions. We would also like the limit of $10,000 for individuals, men and women who contribute, to be as close as possible to the limit allowed in Quebec.

Again, whatever the naysayers may think, the political financing legislation in Quebec is among the most effective of its type and is even cited as an example by many democratic countries throughout the world. Like Canada, some countries are in the process of revising their political financing legislation.

It is a step in the right direction and we hope the government will accept the improvements that could be made to it.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having an opportunity to speak to Bill C-24 which seeks to improve Canada's federal political financing procedures and to make the system fairer and more transparent.

When I first heard of the bill I questioned why we were going here and what needed to be revised? Certainly I would embrace the opportunity to hear opinions on all sides of this subject.

Canadians are justly proud of our system of democratic government that has been built up with so much care and effort over the years. Canadians value the transparency and the fairness of our electoral system that permits them to select members of Parliament who will represent them as well as express their views on important issues of the day.

I have had a very unique personal experience. I have been in public life since 1988 and that was at the same time that my brother-in-law became part of the American democratic system. There have been marked differences that I have been able to follow on a very up front and personal basis.

Canadians are gratified by the fact that Canada has become a watchword for openness and honesty, which has made it a model for many new democracies around the world. Most of us in the House would agree that our political process, including our electoral system, has in fact served us quite well.

However, as we know, democracy is a work in progress and it must change periodically to keep pace with the developments in our very dynamic society. This means that from time to time we must fine tune some of the elements so that they can continue to do the best job of serving Canadians.

For example, in recent years, some Canadians have expressed concerns about the way we finance electoral campaigns. They have told us that allowing well-to-do individuals, corporations and trade unions to make large donations to federal candidates carries along with it the danger that such a practice could allow some people and some groups to exercise undue influence over the deliberations of government and the political process. I should add that this is a perception and not a reality.

Still, as the members in the House know all too well, perception is important in politics. We must address these concerns, since if left unanswered they could undermine the confidence of Canadians in the fairness of government and in the justness of our political process.

This is precisely what the bill seeks to do. The reforms contained in the bill would go a long way toward strengthening public trust in our electoral system by renewing and improving the way we finance elections and bring greater transparency to the system.

I would like to take few moments to discuss some of the features contained in the bill and how they would achieve these noble goals.

Let us look at disclosure. As the government House leader stated when he first introduced the bill, the government has consulted experts, stakeholders, provincial authorities, and ordinary Canadians as to how they thought the current system was working and what would need to be added to it or changed in order to improve it.

We received a number of extremely valuable suggestions. One thing people told us time and time again was that they needed more information on how the electoral system was funded, where the funds come from, and how the money was used. The bill seeks to address this concern by means of a number of provisions designed to increase the transparency of our electoral financing system.

For example, it proposes to expand disclosure provisions so that Canadians could know exactly who is giving money to candidates and to parties, and how much they are receiving. It is clear that this is badly needed.

Currently only candidates and political parties are required to disclose the sources and the amounts of the contributions they receive to the Chief Electoral Officer. Even a casual observer of our political system would have to conclude that this is not adequate, since it omits some key players in the political process.

We must fill in these gaps with our knowledge by expanding this list to include other important participants.

With this in mind, the bill before us today contains provisions that would strengthen disclosure provisions and extend them to all political participants, including electoral district associations, leadership contestants and nomination contestants.

As part of this, all political participants would in the future be required to report contributions and expenses to the Chief Electoral Officer who would disclose the names and the addresses of those giving more than $200. Upon registration with the Chief Electoral Officer, leadership contestants would be required to disclose the amounts and the sources of contributions received prior to the date of registration.

In each of the four weeks immediately preceding a leadership convention candidates would have to submit information on amounts as well as sources of donations. Six months following the leadership contest they would have to submit information on all contributions received as well as expenses incurred to the Chief Electoral Officer.

Nomination contestants would also have to disclose amounts and sources of contributions as well as expenses incurred four months following the nomination contest, and if an election takes place during that period, four months after the election.

Electoral district associations would report contributions and expenses on an annual basis. They would also be allowed to issue tax receipts for contributions in between elections. As we can see, these new provisions would dramatically expand the information available to Canadians on how the system is funded and in doing so would go a long way toward enhancing public confidence in the integrity of our political system.

We looked at limiting where contributions come from. Better disclosure cannot by itself allay all the fears that large political donations may bring and may lead to a perception of undue political influence. That is why the bill would prohibit corporate and union donations, and would limit the amount individuals could contribute.

Only individuals would be able to make financial contributions to registered parties, and to leadership and nomination contestants. Contributions by individuals would be limited to $10,000 each year to registered parties and their electoral district association candidates and nomination contestants.

There is certainly room for debate in this area. Having been in public life since 1988 I can clearly and unequivocally state that nobody, no individual or corporation, has ever given me a $10,000 donation, so I think there is room for debate as to whether that is an appropriate limit for individuals.

During a leadership campaign individual contributions to a contestant of a registered party would be limited to $10,000. One small exception to this would be that corporations, unions and associations would be able to contribute a maximum of $1,000 in total to a party's candidates, nomination contestants and electoral district associations. Heavy penalties such as large fines and possible jail time would be levied to those organizations that try to get around this limit by telling employees to make contributions on their behalf. As we can see, these are fairly strong measures.

Prohibition of corporate and union contributions to political parties is not new. It was done in Quebec in 1977 and more recently it was done in Manitoba. It has been tried successfully in a number of other countries as well.

During the consultative process one of the strongest messages that came through was the need for a level playing field at the nomination level. This was a concern particularly expressed by women candidates. Pursuant to the bill, spending limits should be imposed at the nomination level, which would be the entry level for contestants, and sometimes the toughest fight any candidate will ever wage.

There is a greater need for fair competition among contestants. Taken together these changes would go a long way toward increasing the transparency of our electoral system as well as ensuring that Canadians could have confidence in that system.

However, one issue remains, namely how we maintain adequate levels of funding for a political system. It is clear that the virtual elimination of political contributions by corporations and unions, and the placing of limits on large individual contributions would certainly impact the ability of parties and candidates to fund election campaigns, something none of us would care to do.

To offset such a possible unintended impact the bill proposes to make up for the fall off in private contributions by increasing the currently existing financial assistance by the Government of Canada to parties and to candidates.

Such measures would include: increasing the percentage of election expenses reimbursed to parties from the current 22.5% to 50%, making polling eligible for reimbursement, raising the ceiling for expenses accordingly, lowering the threshold to qualify for reimbursement from 15% to 10% to allow more candidates to have their expenses reimbursed following an election, and providing registered parties with a quarterly allowance based on the percentage of votes gained in the last general election. This would work out annually to $1.50 per vote received in the previous general election.

I would encourage all members of this House to have a fulsome debate and I look forward to debating the bill when it returns from committee.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on budget day, when we talk about money, one would wonder what unbelievable sums of money Bill C-24 will take out of the hands of taxpayers.

I was amused by my colleague for Ottawa Centre. In fact he is my member of Parliament when I hang around Ottawa. He seemed absolutely indignant that anyone should even question the government having nothing but good healthy motives. He will have to read the Hill Times because several of his colleagues are in it and are pretty concerned about the bill.

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in their caucus room as they discussed this. He said that it was transparent and I think he meant that in a very health way. However as soon as Canadian taxpayers find out more and more about it, they will find it transparent all right. They are asked to show their pockets and send the cash.

There will be unbelievable amounts of money flowing into Ottawa for the political purpose of taxpayers, rightly or wrongly. Some support political parties and some do not. We know that. We had a tremendously low voter turnout in the last election. Now they will be told from on high to send in a subsidy of $1.50 a vote to political parties, in addition to corporate donations.

It is unbelievable if one thinks about it. It will be transparent all right. It is transparently ridiculous for a government to do this for such little reason. Nobody knew this was on the horizon, even the Liberal caucus. It was a great surprise. I know the Prime Minister has surprises up his sleeve but it is pretty hard to believe that this legislation would be brought in during the last year of the Prime Minister's mandate. It does look a touch personal, I might say, that he is going to start sticking it to colleagues and/or friends.

Let us just look at a few items and characteristics of the bill if one were to answer the question; what is this bill about? We could say that first, Bill C-24 would restrict the amount of contributions allowed to political parties, riding associations and candidates, including candidates for nomination or party leadership. We know one has to get the nomination first to run as a party candidate.

Second, it would compensate political parties for the anticipated loss in revenue from large corporate and union donations. I am not sure how it would gain and a donation would be lost but anyway I am sure somebody has that math figured out.

Third, it would extend the regulatory aspects of the Canada Elections Act in terms of registration and financial accounting to riding associations as well as nomination and leadership candidates. It does seem passing strange that there would be a leadership race underway while this legislation is going through.

We could look at it and say that it almost makes sense. There are three criteria in it and it sounds like it is a good thing because it would in fact be making it more transparent. Corporate donations would not be banned totally but certainly lessened to not very many thousand dollars.

Then we know how the oil of this place works. We know how the wheels of political parties and leadership races are greased. We know also that even if these corporations are not going to be getting receipted paperwork for making contributions, I think all of us understand and not one of us is naive enough to think that the money will not be flowing anyway. I am certainly nervous that the money will start going under the table and there will be absolutely no accounting for it.

The Canadian public should start thinking about that. It is not just a matter that the corporation cannot give money anymore, even if it is appreciated and the money buys influence, but “hey, wink, wink, how about if you tuck it in my pocket under the table”. No one will have any idea where the money is. As well, neither will the Canadian taxpayer who will be on the hook for it.

My colleague for Ottawa Centre called it transparent. He should just let us know what it really is. It is a tax and it is nothing more than that. It will be a tax on every Canadian taxpayer, many of whom choose not to participate in the political process. One has to respect them for that.

My life was profoundly changed after I sat at coffee tables for too many years whining and complaining about the government. Somebody told me to get off my duff and do something about it. Here I am being long in the tooth in Parliament but certainly being involved in the political process. Many people choose not to do that but they certainly have that right. It is sad because it is better for the country if people become involved.

If people choose not to be involved in the political process, they get it in the left ear anyway. They get stuck with tax credits if they choose that, if they do not they do not get tax credits.

I am sure many Canadians knows this. We certainly in here know how the rules go. If I get 15% of the vote, I get 50% of my expenses back. Who pays for that? The Canadian public. Then political parties get a certain percentage back as well. There are already millions of dollars flowing from the Canadian taxpayers. We estimate it is up to about 60% of political financing. Now the bill will increase that to 70% or 75%.

I think there will be several million people out there saying that they can take care of their own money and that the government should keep its paws off it. They have too many taxes already and this is nothing more than a tax. The government will call it a subsidy, cleaning up, transparency or any pretty word of which it can think. However make no mistake, and we need to be pretty clear on this, this is nothing more than a tax on the Canadian public.

The government should be ashamed of itself. I would love to know if it will put it in its budget this afternoon or if it will just show up somewhere, sometime when we least expect it.

I would like to make reference for a couple of minutes to the Hill Times . I will read a couple of excerpts from it. On Monday, February 17, in the “Money & Politics” Issue, it states that political “Parties will be rolling in the dough”. The subtitle is “The Libs will get an extra $3.43 million and the Alliance will get an extra $4-million”. It would be easy to sit in here, celebrate and say that we just won the lottery without even buy a ticket.

Who pays this money? Every person who files and pays tax to the Government of Canada. Every person will chip in a little for it. Will people not be happy thinking they did this? They are already getting stuck for millions of dollars. If people looked at that subtitle, they might think that if the Alliance were to get an extra $4 million, why would it squawk about it? Why would it not just keep its mouth shut and take the cash? Four million dollars is a lot of money.

I know you have probably read this cover to cover yourself, Mr. Speaker, but if you look at contributions from corporations and unions, the Liberal Party received contributions of $6,691,000 from corporations. That is a pile of cash. The Alliance received $874,000, which is considerably less. Because of that we would get the subsidy top up. One would think we would just keep our mouths shut and take the cash. One could hardly do that with a clear conscience.

We are fundamentally opposed to the bill because we think that those who choose to be involved in the political process should be free to spend their money on it and those who do not take whatever government they get.

A whole new tax regime would be put into place under this wonderful guise of it is a good thing to do, it is transparent and the corporations will not have so much of the ear of the government. Let us talk about Groupaction. Let us talk about sponsorship programs. Let us talk about all kinds of corporate welfare. I know it is just my naivety and a sense of clear irony I am sure, but when we look at the Elections Canada list, those who get these enormous contracts from government are hefty donors to the Liberal Party. It is kind of like the price of doing business.

I find this is wrong. I think it is irresponsible of a government to say “send in the cash”. We need to fight this. The Canadian public needs to be very aware of this. We are trying to make people aware of this.

When we hear Liberal members saying that it is a good thing, it is because it benefits them. They are in government and they will get $1.50 subsidy per vote. The number of valid votes cast in the last election were 5,252,031 for the Liberal Party. If we multiply that times $1.50 a vote for a subsidy, that is a pile of cash. The Alliance was next with 3,276,929 votes. We would get a lot of money for that. However the fundamentals of it are wrong.

The government needs to address this probably sooner, between now and four o'clock when it delivers the budget. Shame on it.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this bill that seeks to enhance confidence in our political system. This is particularly interesting because it allows me to discuss an issue of great importance to my constituents, namely, how we ensure that our political system reflects high ethical standards.

I would like to focus in particular on public financing measures included in the bill and their importance in this legislation which would enhance Canadian confidence in the honesty and openness of our political system.

The Canadian electoral system belongs to all citizens and the support of taxpayers for the maintenance of an effective electoral system is vital. Public funding of the federal electoral process is a longstanding principle in Canada. The reimbursement of party and candidate electoral expenses, and tax credits for contributions, have been around since 1974 when the Election Expenses Act established a new regime for the financing of federal elections in Canada.

The legislation was a response to a growing concern about the fundraising and financing of political parties. In addition to providing for improved disclosure and spending limits, it was recognized at that time that public financing was an important part of the political financing equation.

The importance of public financing to a healthy democracy is such that all provinces have introduced public funding measures to a lesser or greater degree. All provinces provide tax credits for donations, some nearly as generous as the tax credit that is proposed in this legislation and some less. Reimbursement of party expenses is provided in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

In Quebec, for example, the rate of reimbursement is 50%, as is proposed in this legislation. Reimbursement of candidate expenses is provided in all provinces except Alberta and British Columbia. Three provinces, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, provide annual public allowances to political parties.

Quebec in particular has been providing a public allowance since 1975. The current allowance is 50¢ per elector. New Brunswick provides an allowance of $1.69 per vote obtained in the last election. Prince Edward Island provides for an allowance of $2 based on the number of valid votes for a party's candidate in the previous general election.

When the Lortie Commission studied these issues in the early 1990s it noted that the value of candidate and party reimbursements to our electoral democracy had been clearly established.

At that time the commission focused in on candidate and party reimbursements and recommended that reimbursement be tied to a subsidy per vote received. In retrospect, this recommendation is interesting in the context of the current legislation which in fact proposes a public allowance for parties tied to votes received.

When the Chief Electoral Officer examined this issue in his report on the 37th general election he noted that the purpose of public funding was to increase access to the political process. Together with election expense limits public funding is intended to contribute toward a more level playing field in the electoral process.

In his report he recommended that the threshold for candidates to be qualified for reimbursement should be lowered to 5% of the valid votes cast in their electoral district in order to increase access to the political process and broaden national participation. I understand that, since then, the Chief Electoral Officer has also suggested that the rate of reimbursement for election expenses for parties should be increased from 22.5% to 50%.

Clearly, the measures that are proposed to prohibit corporate and union donations and to limit individual donations will have a cost, a cost that is justified to remove the perception of influence over the political process. If we ban corporate and union campaign contributions and restrict large donations by individuals, how do we make up for the resulting shortfall in revenues that parties and candidates might experience?

Candidates and parties need adequate funding to fulfill the important role they play in our political system.

How do we encourage individual Canadians to pick up some of the slack?

The financial measures introduced in Bill C-24 build on existing measures in the bill, as well as previous recommendations and practices in other jurisdictions, in particular, the provinces.

I would now like to speak a little bit about financing measures. The rate of reimbursement for electoral expenses would be increased, according to the bill, from 22.5% to 50%. This would cover in part some of the potential losses that registered parties would incur under the reform.

It would also provide parity between parties. The reform would also add polling expenses to the definition of allowance expenses for reimbursement and raise the ceiling for expenses correspondingly.

Also, according to the bill, the threshold for candidates to qualify for reimbursement of election expenses would be lowered from 15% to 10%. This reflects the reality of our multi-party system.

Also, the bill introduces amendments to the Income Tax Act to double the amount of an individual political contribution that is eligible for a 75% tax credit from $200 to $400.

One of the objectives of the government is to encourage transparency. I would submit that this is exactly what the legislation does.

By voting, citizens would be effectively directing to which party their tax money would go. This would provide a direct link between the voter and the party that the leader of the opposition has been calling for. This is well balanced legislation. I am surprised and shocked to see some of my colleagues standing up in the House and challenging the legislation.

In fact, members of other political parties have seen the merits of the legislation and have stood up and endorsed it because they knew it was the right thing to do.

In our democracy Canadians and taxpayers deserve better than the partisanship that is being advanced by members of the official opposition. It is high time they spoke about the facts in the legislation and moved away from the fiction that they have been talking about over the past few weeks.

I commend the Prime Minister on the leadership he has taken on these issues. I also commend the House leader who has continuously done everything he could possibly do in consultation with the other House leaders to ensure the fast passage of the legislation so it can pass through the other House and become law.

I would also like to see the legislation go further, or an amendment to the legislation go further by making it a law that every Canadian must vote, as is done in Australia, Brazil, Italy and other jurisdictions around the world.

It is high time for us to move forward with the legislation as it has been proposed. At the end of the day it would need the collective action of all of us in order to move forward with such wonderful legislation. I would like to see my colleagues voting for it.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that members opposite really want to be reminded of the scandals and corruption that have followed the government and the Prime Minister since 1993. They also want to be reminded that when the House debated issues of national importance, issues that affected our children, the way families provide for themselves, national security and how we get along with our international partners, the Prime Minister never was involved in those debates. Apparently they were not that important to him. Probably he was spending a lot of time with his lawyers and advisers trying to figure out how to stay one step ahead of the scandals and corruption that have followed the government since 1993.

Then the Prime Minister suddenly appeared in the House and wanted to speak. This is his pet bill. Bill C-24 is an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act as it applies to political financing. What a bill of monumental importance to the country.

Do people understand how this pet bill of the Prime Minister's is going to change the face of our nation and make it so much better for everyone who lives in this country? Our children will be safer on their way to school and while playing in the park; criminals that commit heinous crimes in our country will be given time that reflects the crime; the homeless will have homes; people who are suffering from social injustice will be treated equally; all because of this nation-changing bill of the Prime Minister's. Mr. Speaker, does that sound like a lot of poppycock? Well you bet it is, just like the bill.

This bill that the Prime Minister finds so important will serve no other purpose than to provide yet another tool for the government, the Prime Minister and whoever follows him, to continue even more so to manipulate the taxpayers' money within the treasury of the government. The bill will be of monumental benefit to whom? The governing party.

The Prime Minister is trying to create the facade that he is a person who believes in integrity, in ethics, in what is right and wrong, through this bill. This is despite the last nine and a half years of the country watching him dodge scandal bullets through his political days as Prime Minister, from the Grand-Mère golf course and hotel episode to exonerating his friends and ministers who have been involved in scandals and corruption.

It is a facade. It points to the sheer arrogance and hypocrisy of the Prime Minister, who through this bill wants Canadians to think that he is a nice guy. Well it ain't going to sell because all the bill is for is to extract more dollars out of the taxpayers for political use.

The bill simply replaces the government's addiction to corporate and union political funding with its addiction to taxpayer funding. That is not the answer. Taxpayers cannot be forced to support a political party they normally would not support in the polls, but that is exactly what the bill is trying to do.

The Canadian Alliance is opposed to direct subsidization of political parties. Any public funding must be tied to voluntary donations coming from individuals. Why would a government that purports to believe in democracy and fairness, through a piece of legislation, force Canadians to support a political party financially that they would not support in the polls? That is the big question.

Why is the Prime Minister doing it? It is part of a bigger scam of some sort. Given time, we will figure out exactly what he is up to, we can bet on it, given his record as Prime Minister. Scandals have followed him from 1993 to the present. Scandals have followed the ministers whom he has sent off to places where they can be out of touch and away from the long arm of the law in many cases.

This bill is a cover up. The Prime Minister is trying to make us believe through the bill that he is concerned about how the political system has been funded through corporate donations and even individual donations in the past, that he is concerned about the perception that there may be something wrong with the way politics has been funded. In the same breath he is saying that through his bill he will make everything transparent and ethical.

Canadians almost choke on the word “ethics” as it comes from the Prime Minister. Some days in the House we wait for the lightning to come through the ceiling when the Prime Minister talks about ethics in his party.

We cannot support the bill. It represents a massive shift in the sources of contributions to political parties, from the voluntary actions of Canadians to the mandatory imposition on Canadians to support political parties, whether or not they would support them in the polls. We cannot and will not support the bill.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is amazing that when we discuss important issues in the House for the benefit of the country, such as health care, the security of our nation, criminal justice or more defence funding, we never see the Prime Minister speak to those issues in the House. On issues of real national importance does the Prime Minister ever come to the House and put forward his point of view? No.

When did we see the Prime Minister? When he stood in the House with Bill C-24, his little, private, personal bill, designed to give him and his government even more tools to manipulate taxpayer money to the benefit of that party. He is not fooling anyone in the House.

When I looked at the bill, when I listened to the Prime Minister and other Liberals, I thought, “My God, the sheer hypocrisy of it all”. The Prime Minister stood up in the House and talked about how this system would behave more equitably and with more integrity. This coming from a Prime Minister who since 1993 has been followed by scandal after scandal--

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-24 will make a severe shift in the sources of funds for political parties. That shift will be from the voluntary actions of people and organizations to a mandatory imposition upon the taxpayers of Canada. That is what we are talking about today.

The previous speaker talked about consulting with the people. I certainly agree with that. He also mentioned that this very important piece of legislation would be on the agenda for a couple of days, probably tomorrow and the next day, once we get the budget out of the way. I have a problem with the whole thing.

Today the whole world and all Canadians are focusing on the possibility of war in Iraq, the problems we have in dealing with terrorists, the fear that is in the hearts of a lot of people and where we are going with all those issues. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have petitioned the government, this body of people, to deal with the pedophiles who are hurting our children through child pornography and our failure to raise the age of consent. They are begging us to do something about the problems we are facing.

Canadians are focusing on being able to make ends meet and being able to feed their families. In most cases both parents are working hard trying to keep food on the table. They are struggling day in and day out. They are focusing on how they can do that. Today many Canadians across the land are wondering how they will pay their heating bills and how they can possibly keep gasoline in their cars. There are problems facing them economically.

The government, this body of people, should be here today focusing on the needs of society and on the needs of Canadians. What are we focusing on? We are focusing on a bill that would enhance a financial gain for political parties. We are focusing on a bill that the Liberals hope would get them re-elected.

If we stop and think about it for a moment, there are priorities. The world is focusing on a possible war. Parents are wondering if their children will be safe in our society because so many things are getting out of hand. Instead of spending a day dealing with child pornography, for example, getting it off the face of the earth and being determined to do it, we are in here talking about what we can do in order to get re-elected and how we can gouge more money out of the taxpayers.

I have news for the Liberals, if they have not learned it by now. Most of the taxpayers are at their limit. I do not know if Canadians have enough money left even to pay that extra amount to keep their houses warm. There are lots of problems out there in society and we are not dealing with them. That is what we were elected to do.

Instead we are focusing on how to gain politically and financially and what we can do to get re-elected. Are the Liberals not a proud bunch? They should hang their heads in shame if that is all they can talk about during this time, during the next few weeks with the difficulties we are facing as a country and as a world. If all they can focus on is how to get re-elected and how to get more political and financial gains in their pockets, then every one of them should hang his or her head in shame.

I for one cannot understand how after 10 years we are still concentrating on how the Prime Minister can put some sort of legacy in place so that he will be remembered.

Unfortunately for him I know there will be a lot of people who will remember this government and the legacy that will be formed, and it is formed. They will talk about and remember golf courses, hotels and water fountains. They will talk about pepper spray that was used in a peaceful demonstration, which supposedly we are allowed to have in Canada. They will talk about the billion dollar boondoggle in HRDC. Last but not least, right up until today, they will remember the nearly billion dollars that has gone down the tubes through a gun registry.

The Prime Minister should not worry, his legacy has been laid out. There are many things that this country will remember about this government. I hope I live for a long time because I will keep reminding Canadians exactly what has taken place.

The greatest country in the world to live is Canada. It could be so much greater if we would focus on the needs of society that face us today and get away from this idea of what can we do to get re-elected and how can we build our party coffers. That is what we will do today and that is what we did yesterday. Bill C-24 will come up again in midst of all these crises and we will still be talking about what can we do for ourselves, not what can we do for Canadians.

Yes, we are waiting for a budget today. “Wait for the budget”, I hear. We suspect it will be a pretty good budget. Who knows, the government might find more money for health and defence, but I know it will find more money to throw away on useless programs like gun registries, billion dollar boondoggles and handing money out to friends. The government is really good at that.

We will talk about Groupaction. We will continue to remind people about the contracts that were paid for but were never done. We will keep copies of the Auditor General's reports year after year, blasting government department after department for their lack of accountability to the Canadian people and answering to the taxpayers. Now we are discussing legislation to see how much more money can be gouged from the taxpayers, whether they want to pay it or not.

I think about big industry being subsidized or a guaranteed loan going to a corporation. I think about finding out that those corporations have donated huge amounts of money to the Liberal Party.Then I realize that the money which has been used to subsidize that corporation or that loan guarantee is part of my money, because I am a taxpayer. I would not want a lot of people to think that part of my money has gone to support the Liberal Party. My father would turn over in his grave if he thought one nickel of my money went to support this kind of government.

We will keep this thing in the eyes of Canadians. Let them decide voluntarily who they want to support as a party. Why should they be forced into supporting someone who has policies, standards and values with which they do not agree? That should never happen but this legislation will guarantee it. Some of the goals in this document are not too far off but it needs some amendments to close these huge loopholes that will be devastating to the taxpayers of Canada. I hope the government will think about it.

As a final note, for heaven's sake, why in the world are we concentrating hour after hour on a document that will give a personal benefit to us as individuals and we are not addressing the problems in society?

Yes, there will be a legacy. Remember farmers going to jail? Remember when pedophiles were on house arrest? Remember those kind of things? That is a legacy. I know a lot of people in my riding will not forget it. One day I think the people of Canada will wake up and realize that what we have is not real representation of the needs of our society. What we are facing today is representation of what we can do to get re-elected. That is a shame

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-24 is supposed to make the whole electoral process and the funding in particular more transparent. In fact, the bill is envisioned to make the whole thing a little more democratic than what we have at the present time.

It covers a number of areas. It would require the registration of all political parties and it would ban political donations by corporations and unions. It would limit individuals' contributions and would regulate nominations for candidates and for leadership personnel. It also would establish a very controversial provision, which is the public funding of electoral campaigns.

I want to address two areas that are glaring loopholes in the legislation regarding financing. This legislation in the first instance is supposed to make the financing of campaigns of political parties more transparent. One of the statements to support this thing was that the reason unions and corporations would be banned from making contributions was to sort of make the influence of the large donors less on the political process.

There is a particular provision that exists in the world that this act studiously avoids and does not deal with at all, that is, the creation of trusts. Trusts are a very interesting construct. This would allow for individuals, corporations, unions or anyone to set up a trust account.

We have before us now the requirement that financial institutions, if they want to merge like the banks or the insurance companies, must go through an approval process. I can easily conjecture the possibility of one of these institutions, or a number of them, establishing a trust fund for a particular individual who has political influence, and telling that individual that it will set up a $1 million trust fund so the individual can access expenditure funds, as long as they are not electoral, to buy motor homes, houses, land or whatever with it. The individual would be told that it was his or her trust fund but that it had the condition that when the legislation came before the House, the individual would support the merger or coming together of certain business ventures.

If there were ever the possibility of a direct connection between big money and political influence, it would be through the arrangement of a trust situation. That is studiously avoided in the legislation.

I suggest that it might be very difficult to enforce particular legislation with regard to trust that does not do away with the fact that there is a vehicle which can be used and clearly ties contributions to a politician through a trust which is outside the provisions of this particular legislation.

If the purpose of the legislation is to make democracy more transparent and to make individuals more accountable, to avoid this particular provision is to deny dealing with exactly one of the major issues that apparently was the motivation for bringing this legislation into being in the first place.

I also wish to draw to members' attention the complexity of the legislation. When a constituency registers, there are clear provisions for the processing of expense claims, deemed contributions, that is, claims that are unpaid after 18 months, financial reporting, contributions to be forwarded to the receiver general in certain cases, and corrections and extended reporting periods. An auditor's report is required if the contributions or expenses of the electoral district association exceed $5,000. Provision is made for the payment of audit expenses to a total of $1,500, and, pursuant to clause 30, the returns of registered associations shall be published.

I want to go further into that business of financial arrangements. I think the people who are watching this would be very interested in listening to some of these things that the Library of Parliament researchers have put together.

The intention appears to be to compensate parties for the removal of corporate and union donations, which are largely made at the party level rather than to individual candidates or constituency associations. Political parties are at the heart of a modern political electoral system and, arguably, are essential, which is correct, and I agree with that.

At present, registered political parties are publicly funded through the tax system. I agree with that. It is roughly about 40%. The provisions in this bill would raise that total contribution attached to the public purse to somewhere around 70%. Bill C-24 proposes to extend and enhance the extent of access to political parties to the public purse.

The rate of reimbursement of electoral expenses for candidates is currently 50%. Bill C-24 proposes to raise to 50% the reimbursement rate which is now 22.5%. With respect to individual candidates, the bill proposes that the percentage of votes that a candidate must obtain in his or her riding to qualify for reimbursement of electoral expenses be lowered to 10% from the current 15%. Fewer votes would be required in order to qualify for the rebate.

The controversial part is that the bill would provide for an annual allowance to registered parties in the amount of $1.50 per vote received by the party in the previous general election, provided that the party had received in the last election either 2% of the valid votes cast nationally or 5% of the votes in the riding where the party ran candidates. The figure of $1.50 is apparently based on the calculations of potentially lost income to parties as a result of the changes in eligibility of donors.

It appears that several provinces in Canada provide allowances to registered parties based on their electoral results. That does not make it right. Just because somebody is doing it does not mean that it is the right thing to do. This is a controversial issue and largely a matter of policy and philosophy as to whether one subscribes to that.

The reason I have difficulty supporting this kind of thing is because it would give the party that won in the last election a financial advantage over any other party that might be contesting the next election. That is not democratic. That is building on a bias which is false, which is bias in its interpretation and which gives an advantage to a particular group.

As an incentive to encourage contributions by individuals, the bill also introduces amendments to the Income Tax Act to double the amount of an individual's political donation that is eligible for a 75% tax credit, from $200 to $400, and to increase accordingly each other bracket. All of these are different ways of getting more money out of the public purse.

The question really becomes: Where is the individual's choice in the matter?

I want to point out another loophole in the bill that all members of the House ought to be aware of. A deemed contribution does not apply to an unpaid claim that on the day referred to in the previous subsection has been written off by the creditor as an uncollectable debt in accordance with a creditor's normal accounting procedures. This can be read very clearly, and I have checked it out with some legal beagles who have told me that the reading is correct. This is a possible reading. It would then be possible for someone to extend a loan to either a candidate or to a party and then declare, according to his or her particular pattern, that the loan is uncollectable. What could that be? It could be that a bill is extended to the party or to the candidate and the candidate agrees not to pay it. If it has not been paid for 19 or 20 months, the company says that it is not collectable because that is the time a bill is usually written off. Therefore it is an uncollectable debt and not a contribution to a party and not a deemed contribution.

That is a loophole that exists in the legislation. I suggest that not only does this hide a lot of things, but it provides for the chicanery to allow the political, misleading statements and the clever arguments that really hide the truth in this legislation. I cannot support the legislation for those reasons.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-24.

Before I go through the details of the bill and why I oppose it I would like to go back to a personal observation that was made a couple of years ago when I went to Washington with the international trade minister. We were there for a globalization conference. During the luncheon speech that he was making, I had an opportunity to walk around and speak to some of the Americans that were in the audience. They made a very interesting observation. They said it was quite enjoyable and pleasant to talk to Canadian elected officials because they listened and paid attention to what was being said.

Their observation was that it was because privy council members and other members were elected, and were accountable to the people. In Washington, with the exception of the President of the United States who is elected, the secretaries of state are appointed by the president, so they have the attitude, “It is my way or the highway”. It is the president alone who is accountable, not the secretaries of state. The people I spoke to gave the comparison that elected officials who were accountable would listen to the people, whereas those who were not elected did not have to listen to the people. As they are not bound to listen to the people, they might make decisions that are at times not reflective of what the populace desires.

What does that have to do with Bill C-24? It has to do with accountability. Bill C-24 talks about political financing for political parties, riding associations, candidates, and nominations. It is an attempt by the government to transfer the control from being accountable to the populace to relying on the state for the financing of political parties. Financing of political parties is one of the most important aspects in democracy because only then are we accountable to the electorate.

The government's rationale for this is the same as saying it does not want to be held hostage or be unduly influenced by corporations, unions or other bodies. It wants the whole thing transferred to the government so it would become less accountable.

The Liberal Party has failed miserably to raise money from individuals. In the past it has relied on big corporate donations. As far as other parties are concerned the New Democratic Party is a typical example. It is totally detached from the Canadian population because its money comes from the trade unions. Its constitution allows trade unions to have a disproportionate amount of influence in its party affairs than ordinary people.

The Canadian Alliance and the Reform Party, being a new party, has a higher level of contributions from ordinary Canadians. As such we are accountable to them including myself. My average donation is between $100 and $150 from the people in my riding. If I need money I need to go out to talk to individuals and be responsive to them. They feel good about being involved in the political process of the country and that they are contributing to democracy.

A couple of questions need to be raised as to why the bill is coming forward now when the Prime Minister has already declared that he is going. He has introduced this bill saying that we need to reform the financing of political parties because we do not want undue influence from big corporations. Just think for a second about the timing of the bill. The Prime Minister has declared that he is going and is accountable to no one, as he likes to point out.

If we look at the history of the Liberal Party, it has benefited the most from corporate donations. Why would a party that has benefited the most from corporate donations suddenly have a conscience saying that no, it does not want this. Up to now it has benefited the most and now it says that was a bad thing. One wonders why that happened. If we look at the political financing of the Liberal Party we ask the question, why now?

If the Prime Minister thought he could stop his challenger, I think that big fish is gone out of his net. He has already amassed a fortune out of corporate donations. I am sure that 90% of the former finance minister's financing has come from corporations, which is exactly directly opposite to what this bill is intending to do. The whole purpose of the bill, no matter what the government says, is under suspicion.

We are shaking our heads and asking: What has happened? Why should Canadian taxpayers suddenly take this responsibility of financing political parties? Where is this grassroots democracy where one must give money to participate?

If people feel good and we are responsive, they will give us the money. Accountability of elected officials is the key element. The bill would take that away and would create a federal bureaucracy that would interfere with the workings of a party because the government would be financing it.

One of the reasons why we oppose the bill is because it would take the accountability out of ordinary grassroots Canadians and spread it to the government so that, for the ordinary Canadians, the ruling party would not be accountable. That is the trademark of what is happening with the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister who has proudly said that he was going and that he was accountable to no one, and that he could bring these things forward.

He has been in the House for 40 years and we give him credit for that. He has been in the political arena for a long time. He has seen everything and he has respected tradition. However, for him to say that he was accountable to no one must go against his own grain of thinking. Forty years of being in the House and he is saying that upon leaving.

In conclusion, the timing and the intent of the bill is suspicious, given the record of the government. As such, we will oppose the bill.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to talk about Bill C-24. I appreciate the applause from across the way. In response, I want to say that I do not think I have seen legislation that is as self-serving as this legislation appears to be, so the member may wish to refrain from clapping.

There are a number of reasons that parties would support this bill. We know that at least three of the parties have tremendous debts and that they are more than willing to try to get the taxpayers to bail them out. One of the parties in particular has a philosophy that it never fails to belly up to the trough. I guess we see that on a regular basis when we see that party's unelected leader is only too happy to take a free lunch in the member's lounge.

The bill is definitely not what one would call leadership. I think of it more as legislative sloth and selfishness.

The bill has three purposes. The first is it would restrict the amount of contributions allowed to political parties, to riding associations and candidates, including candidates for nomination and/or party leadership. Most notably it would restrict donations from corporations and unions, although we are beginning to hear rumblings from members on the government side that they would like to see the limits removed on some of the corporate donations.

The second purpose of the bill is it would compensate political parties for the anticipated loss in revenue from their large corporate and union donations by way of direct public financing.

The third purpose of the bill would be to extend the regulatory aspects of the Canada Elections Act in terms of registration and financial accounting, all the way down to riding associations and to nomination and leadership candidates.

Those contributions would be restricted to individual Canadians and landed immigrants. A maximum of $10,000 per year would be able to be given to each party, which would include riding associations, election and nomination candidates, plus a further $10,000 per year that individuals would be allowed to donate to leadership candidates of a particular party. We see that the restrictions on individuals are not particularly onerous.

Corporate, union and unincorporated associations would be prohibited from giving donations except for an annual maximum of $1,000 for each donor per party. Those donations would only be given to riding associations or candidates for election or nomination and not directly to the parties themselves. There is a weak attempt as well within this to try to prohibit indirect donations, that is, any donation from a person or entity who had the money given to him or her by some other party who wants to give it to the political party. As I read through the legislation I thought that was particularly weak in trying to prevent those donations from taking place.

With respect to the compensation provisions, the government has decided that it would use taxpayers to fund directly political parties. Parties would receive an annual allowance equivalent to $1.50 times the number of valid votes that were cast for them in the last election. In reading the legislation I saw that this was called an allowance and I got a picture of when I was a small child going to my parents with my hand out trying to get my weekly allowance. The government wants to see itself as a big mother who is handing out allowances to the political parties. That is how it would be done.

Tax credits would also be increased to 75% on the first $400, up from $200, to a maximum of $650, up from $500. As well, reimbursements to political parties would be increased, as would be the maximum eligible expenses per voter. Incredibly, polling costs for political parties, which is basically the propaganda of the campaign, would be covered by taxpayer funding. That is a little ridiculous.

The government would regulate the number of ways it extends most of the bureaucratic control it now has from political parties right down to the local associations, to nomination candidates, as well as to leadership candidates. There would be massive demands put on nomination candidates, people who have come off the street and have decided they want to try to run for a nomination.

As I read through the legislation I thought that the regulations put on people who are just running for a nomination would be far too demanding. They would have to get a financial officer, an auditor, and fill out the reports. I did some math and it could be somewhere between 3,500 and 4,500 people who have to fill in the forms and send them in to the government to make sure they have done everything right. That is just for their nomination.

There would be an increase in bureaucracy at the local level. It would just go to ridiculous lengths. The present disclosure rules would be extended to riding association nomination candidates and also to leadership candidates.

Riding associations would be affected by this. They would have to register and provide annual reports and have CEOs and financial officers and auditors on an annual basis. It seems to me that this would be a bureaucrat's dream but everyone else's nightmare.

The implications of the legislation are huge. As the government sees it, there is a problem but it thinks the problem is perception and that perception is that politicians are tainted. The government has a history of being tainted because of things like the HRDC scandal, a golf course and hotel affair and ad scandals. It also had to ship one of its ministers off to Denmark in a hurry.

We all accept the reality that the government is influenced by a few companies. Yesterday in question period we heard that two companies, Nortel and Bombardier, have over 50% of the Business Development Bank's loan portfolio. They are just two companies with close knit connections to the government.

The government's solution is not to change reality but to change the perception so people think it is actually doing something. As the public sees it, there is a problem here with a lack of accountability. That lack of accountability is both within the Liberal Party and outside the Liberal Party.

The Liberal Party has a situation where people cannot buy memberships as they choose within the party. What kind of democratic party is run that way? A while ago one of the vice-presidents from one of the B.C. riding associations had a letter in the paper asking why they should sell memberships to non-Liberals. She did not want to open it up to Canadians to buy a membership within that party.

We know the Liberal Party has a problem in terms of nominations because many of its people are appointed. They do not have to go through the whole nomination process. Most of them will probably not have to file their reports because they are just given the nomination. There will be no expenses involved there.

We know that the cabinet is appointed by a formula. We see every day that it is definitely not appointed by quality. There is a problem within the party at that level as well.

The Prime Minister has told us that he does not need anybody and that he can do what he wants. What kind of accountability is that to Canadian people?

There is also an understanding outside the government that it cannot handle the country's money in a safe and secure way. We have seen things like the HRDC scandal which I mentioned before. The gun registry is another example of how the government has completely failed to manage taxpayers' money. We know there is a problem, but why do we try to fix it by amplifying it? By using a solution that will make political parties less accountable is not going to work.

The Liberal government would get almost $8 million from the head tax in this proposed legislation which would be even better than the $6.5 million it received from donations last year. If the corporate donation limit is dropped and restricted, why should the parties not be obligated to make it up from other donors? The problem for the Liberals is that they do not have public support to do that.

The Alliance Party received donations last year from 50,000 individuals. The Liberal Party received donations from 5,000 individuals. Less than 10% of the number of individuals who supported our party were willing to support the governing party. It received only 19%, less than one in five dollars, from individuals. The rest came from tax rebates from big corporations. As my colleague from Fraser Valley said yesterday, if the Liberals had to rely on the average voter, they would starve to death.

The Liberals did not want to go to the public. This was never more evident than yesterday when the member for Davenport spoke. He took our leader to task because last week he said that political parties, like markets, should be responsible to the people who need and want them. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable statement to me.

The member for Davenport said he would reject that notion as he was sure most members of the House would do as well. He said that political parties are not a marketable commodity. He may dream that. Maybe he has been sitting in government a bit too long. He cannot say that parties should not be responsible to the people who want and need them.

The member also said that political parties have nothing to do with the marketplace. Of course they do. The marketplace of public opinion is determined every election and it should determine the support of political parties.

The Canadian Alliance has some simple solutions. One of them is to reduce donor limits where there are problems. Two, political parties should be forced to get their funding from their own supporters, not from taxpayers. That is a pretty simple solution. Three, something should be done with this legislation to address the problem of where influence really is. We need a standard of conduct for those people who have the influence: the cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister. Individual MPs have an influence as a group, but cabinet ministers have influence directly. Something definitely needs to be done about that and it is not addressed in the legislation.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to make some brief comments in this debate on Bill C-24 now before us, a bill that proposes to amend both the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act as those two pieces of legislation relate to political party financing and election funding.

I suppose that a broad-brush description of what Bill C-24 is about what might be captured by two explanations, the first being that this is a bill to keep big money out of politics and the second being that it aims to create a more level playing field for candidates running for political office and also for political parties seeking representation in the House of Commons. It would allow them to more fully participate not just in political debate but in the political decision making that takes place in the Parliament of Canada.

It is no secret to anybody in the House, and I think it is well known to Canadians, that the New Democratic Party has long favoured getting the big money out of politics. That is why, when the federal New Democratic Party was in a balance of power position from 1972 to 1974 with a minority Liberal government, the NDP pushed very hard and successfully to gain some reforms with regard to election party financing and political party funding, the most important of which I think was recognized at the time to be the full disclosure of the sources and amounts of political party financing.

I think that over the years this has helped to illuminate somewhat the connections in regard to political parties that run on a platform saying they aim to represent the interests of working people, the interests of small business and the interests of all Canadians equally, including those who are disadvantaged. What actually happens when some of those political parties are elected to govern is that it suddenly becomes clear that the political decisions, the public policy decisions made by those parties funded by big money, either big corporate money or contributions from very wealthy people, the policies they actually embrace and implement in the end, work against any claim to represent ordinary people, to represent a commitment to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor or to create equal opportunity among big business and small business interests, for example.

There are many examples of this, but of course the most consistent example has been that of the Liberal Party. As a result of the massive financial base for Liberal Party candidates and for the party itself being from corporate Canada, it very often has just turned its back on the very commitments to represent ordinary Canadians in a more fair-minded way that were made on the election trail.

I was in the House when the Prime Minister spoke about his inspiration for bringing forward this legislation. I do not think it makes much sense to dwell very much on the motivation, but when he talked about it being from his point of view important to get big money out of politics, I could not help but wonder why it took him almost 40 years in public office before he came to the conclusion that this was an important thing to do. I could not help but wonder whether the motivation had a little bit more to do not so much with keeping big money out of politics but with frustrating the ambitions of the member for LaSalle—Émard to succeed him in political office, knowing how much the most likely successor to the current Prime Minister in fact is very handsomely bank-rolled by big money, both corporate and from wealthy citizens.

Having said that, I think it is very welcome that we now, whatever the motivation, which will not actually affect the legislation itself over the long term, finally have some significant reforms before us. I want to say what my colleagues who have spoken in debate prior to me have said: that we very much support in principle the legislation that is now before us. Of course, as is always true, the devil is in the details. We feel that there are some parts of the legislation that do beg for amendment, that do need to be understood in terms of how they actually would undermine and frustrate what is the stated purpose of the legislation.

I do not have a lot of time to talk at length about those specific examples, but let me zero in on one, which is the defining of the maximum individual contribution as $10,000.

I noted that a number of Liberal members, particularly women members of Parliament, spoke very positively in support of aspects of this legislation, as well they might, and I applaud them for that. They have acknowledged that in many cases big money has defeated not only women candidates but minority candidates and less financially well heeled candidates in regard to winning Liberal nominations in the past. I believe that one Liberal member was candid enough to disclose, and I admire her for it, that she actually spent $100,000 just to gain the nomination for the Liberal Party in her riding. She was not required to disclose that, although under this legislation candidates would have to. Previously they did not have to. However, I admire the fact that she disclosed this. She is quite convinced that had she not spent that $100,000, she would not have won the nomination.

However, I have to say that this underscores a couple of weaknesses, I think, in both the case that is being put by the government for the specific measures and also their credibility. It is in the sense that any political party actually in favour of creating more diversity and more equity in terms of persons seeking political office surely would have cleaned up its own act, surely would have put in order within its own house various checks and balances on the impact of big money.

It really is surprising to me that the Liberal Party, if actually seriously committed to limiting the impact of big money, has not long since done what the New Democratic Party has done, for example, in the absence of federal legislation binding on all political parties, all political candidates and all nomination seekers. It is surprising to me that it would not have put in place limitations within its own party, because of course we are responsible to govern within our own party with rules that are fair-minded. Nevertheless, whatever the motivation, I think we have to welcome the fact that the government is finally now moving on this.

I want to say a further word about the $10,000 limit. If the purpose of the legislation is genuinely to limit the impact of big money, then it has to be recognized that this $10,000 limit is simply too high. Otherwise, what the government is knowingly saying to Canadian citizens is that it is purporting that the purpose of the legislation is to level the playing field and to remove the undue influence of those who have big money, and that means the government is profoundly ignorant of the fact that vast numbers of Canadians, the overwhelming majority, could not possibly make a $10,000 contribution, no matter how deep they dug into their pockets: not ordinary wage earners, not seniors, not those living on fixed incomes, and not the average working family that can barely make it to the end of the month and still pay the bills. This is just a contradiction in what the government says is its objective.

Second, to not place that limit as a finite limit for all contributions similarly leaves the door open for those who have big money, for them to spread $10,000 around, let us say, for the Liberal candidate, the Conservative candidate and the Alliance candidate, knowing that they roughly support the same public policies, in order to defeat a New Democrat candidate who simply does not represent those monied interests. Really it would be a limit of $30,000 put into those right wing campaigns to try to frustrate the will of people who want to see a more representative Parliament.

There are many things to be said for the legislation. If the government is serious about limiting big money in politics, I hope it will take seriously the need for some amendments that are in order.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will not make a comment about all the members leaving.

As a result of a string of scandals involving the resignation of cabinet ministers and the misuse of tax dollars, many Canadians increasingly are distancing themselves from the political process.

However, instead of dealing head on with the ethical scandals that have plagued the Liberal regime, the Prime Minister chose instead to blame the media and the opposition for the high level of cynicism among the electorate. Obviously Canadians were not convinced and, despite the Prime Minister introducing a series of vague, new ethics rules and codes of conduct, the public continues to doubt the sincerity of these attempts by the government.

The Prime Minister has now introduced Bill C-24 in a further attempt to alleviate ongoing criticisms of his government's ethical lapses. However the introduction of the bill is just one more example of why Canadians have become so disenchanted with the Liberal government.

The Liberal way of doing politics reminds me of a saying by Groucho Marx, who defined politics as the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying all the wrong remedies. Bill C-24 clearly falls within this definition.

In its latest effort to remove the taint of scandal from its handling of tax dollars and government programs, the Liberal government has introduced a bill which would, among other things, ban corporate and union donations to political parties. These provisions may prevent a repetition of the advertising and sponsorship scandals involving donations to the Liberal Party and the awarding of government contracts to those same Liberal Party donors, but at the same time it places the overwhelming burden of funding federal political parties on the taxpayer.

Under the new rules each political party would receive $1.50 for every vote cast in its favour in the last federal election. This would translate into an additional cost of approximately $23 million a year in a non-election year, about $40 million in an election year, or about $110 million during the typical four year lifespan of a government.

I was speaking to a colleague of mine just recently about the passing of the hat at political meetings. Under the bill, anyone putting $10 or more into the hat would have to be disclosed. Passing the hat was a strong tradition with the old Reform Party and it continues with the Alliance Party, but imagine passing the hat at a political meeting and announcing that if people give $10 or more they need to leave their name and address. That is the kind of wrong-headed approach that the government wants to adopt. It wants to discourage the ordinary voter from participating in political meetings and voluntarily supporting their party of choice.

While all political parties stand to benefit from Bill C-24, the Liberal Party of Canada stands to gain the most. In debt and unable to raise the funds it requires to fight another election, because the former finance minister has reportedly scooped all of the available corporate donations into his own secret leadership war chest, the Liberal Party would now receive almost $8 million a year under this proposal.

As one Liberal member of Parliament said, in stating the obvious, “Fundraising will be a lot easier and it will take care of the debt”. What a remarkable statement. It is like a bank robber walking into a bank where everybody has already been tied up and saying that it makes robbing banks a lot easier. It will but it is shameful conduct.

The New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois predictably quickly expressed their approval of this new scheme to lift money from the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer. On the other hand, I am proud to say that the Canadian Alliance and its official opposition leader have taken a strong stand against this tax grab. Our leader stated after the bill was introduced:

This was truly a missed opportunity to bring in responsible campaign finance reform, but the Liberal proposal just replaces an addiction to corporate and union funding with an addiction to taxpayer funding. That's just not on--not with the Alliance, and not with the Canadian people.

I know that it is certainly not on with the residents of my riding of Provencher. One of my constituents, a Mr. Tim Plett, wrote an editorial in the Steinbach Carillon strongly expressing his disagreement with the bill. I would like to take the opportunity to quote from that editorial. Mr. Plett states:

Under the bill, the money now coming out of corporate and union coffers will, instead, come to some extent from the federal treasury. That surely seems to make it likely to make elections even more expensive and raises concerns about taxpayers unwillingly supporting parties through their taxes. It also seems to give the advantage to the party in power since funding will be proportionally based on the number of seats held in the House of Commons. If voters are cynical about democracy it surely has more to do with what happens after elections than with how campaigns are funded. If there is a problem with cynicism and apathy, this bill will amount to nothing more than window dressing.

I think that Mr. Plett's disappointment with the government's handling of political financing is indicative of a widespread belief among the Canadian public, certainly among the people in my riding, that politicians need to be viewed with a measure of distrust and that governments look out for their own interests above those of the public.

In contrast, the Canadian Alliance position is a much more accurate reflection of Canadian values. We believe that any public support for political parties must be tied to voluntary donations from individuals, not to mathematical formulas based on prior election results and additional moneys from taxpayers.

The Canadian Alliance opposes any increase in taxpayer funded subsidies to political parties, although we can support, at least in principle, some limitations on corporate, union and individual donations.

We think that the bill should be amended to prevent indirect contributions through trust funds and to make the provisions of the bill fairer to smaller parties and non-incumbents. We should not presume that because we are in Parliament today the voters of Canada will want to see us there tomorrow. This is a built-in bias toward elected officials.

Without those substantial amendments, my colleagues and I in the Alliance cannot support this bill that is at best, as my constituent put it, “window dressing” and at worst a cynical attempt to turn the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians into political benefits for the governing Liberal Party.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill. Unfortunately the bill is not much of a pleasure to read or actually consider. There are five points I would like to make in my ten minutes about Bill C-24, the political financing bill of the Liberals.

First, replacing an addiction to corporate and union financing for campaigns with an addiction to taxpayer financing is not an answer.

Second, the Canadian Alliance is opposed to direct subsidization of political parties. Any public funding to political parties must be tied to voluntary donations coming from individuals.

Third, it is fundamentally wrong to force Canadians to give tax dollars to political parties they do not support or with which they have a profound intellectual disagreement.

Fourth, the bill provides for no limits on donations to politicians' personal trusts. This is a big loophole which would allow individuals, corporations and unions to circumvent the new donation limits in the bill.

Fifth, it is worrying that while the whole world is focusing on concerns beyond this place, particularly the situation in Iraq and the situation with regard to the financing of health care, the Liberals are focusing on what will get them re-elected and what will get their party the greatest financial gain in the coming months as we head into the next federal election campaign.

I will talk about some specific components of the bill and the problems that I have with them.

First, in the bill corporations, unions or incorporated associations can contribute a maximum of $1,000 per year to a combination of the riding associations, nomination candidates or general election candidates of each political party. Therefore, they can contribute a maximum per year of $1,000 times the number of registered political parties. I do not have a big problem with that part of the bill, although I have a problem with the idea of limiting how much an individual or a corporation should be allowed to give to a political party.

With regard to the campaigning of elections, to me the question is not how much should one be allowed to give or how much should a group of people who are organized collectively be allowed to give, but how much should campaigners be allowed to spend and how is the money that is given disclosed?

A Canadian citizen or landed immigrant can contribute a maximum of $1,000 per year to a combination of the riding associations, nomination candidates, general election candidates and the registered party itself for each political party and an additional sum of $10,000 for the leadership candidates of any one political party plus a further sum of $10,000 for one general election candidate who is not a nominee of any political party. Therefore, they can contribute a maximum per year of $10,000 times the number of registered political parties plus the additional sum in any year when a political party has a leadership contest or there is a general election. All these contribution limits will be automatically indexed for inflation.

In the bill there is to be a prohibition on indirect contributions in an attempt to prevent funding by way of trust; that is the legislation as drafted does not in fact effectively do that if we were to really look at it. The political contribution tax credit will be increased to 75% on the first $400 from $200 and a maximum tax credit increased from $500 to $650.

A lot of people who have not donated to political parties do not realize that if they currently give $200 to a political party, they will receive a tax credit the following year of $150. This is a way of channelling mandated tax liability to its particular political party, up to 75% of the first $200 donation. Since the actual cost to the taxpayer is $50, $150 is taken off the tax bill's tax credit. It is not a tax receipt.

In other words, if people have no tax liability whatsoever and if they earn $8,000 as a student or as something else and decide to give $200 to a political party, they receive a cheque for $150. It is a credit, not a deduction. Now the Liberals want to raise this up from $200 to $400 with the idea of incorporating more money into political parties and encouraging more people to give money to political parties.

On this point I would like to digress a little from the specifics of financing political campaigns. After a decade in power, it is absurd that the Liberals, if they want to encourage citizens to get more involved in politics, would not want to get citizens more involved in dialogue, debating, activism and volunteer activities. Instead they want more of their money. If we give $200 today, we get to write off $150 of it as a credit that comes back to us. The Liberals want to raise that $200 to $400, so if someone gives $400 to a political campaign, that person will get $300 of it back.

The Liberals are not going to let their members of Parliament vote freely in the House. They are not going to give Canadians the capacity to initiate citizens' initiated recall. They are not going to give them the power to initiate a citizen initiated referendum about an issue that is complicated and difficult that the politicians do not have the guts to talk about. The Liberals are not going to give Canadians those tools, but if they want more money, well hell, they will loosen up the laws and make it easier for them to line their pockets. That is something they will do.

That is the kind of Liberal mindset that does not actually feed a system. All it does is feed more cash going into the pockets of politicians.

The most absurd and offensive part of the bill states that there will be an annual allowance paid directly by the taxpayers to each political party that qualified for the reimbursement in the 2000 election. The allowances will total an amount equal to the sum of $1.50 times the number of valid votes cast in the last general election. Each eligible party's share will be based on a percentage of the valid votes cast.

What this means in actuality is permanent subsidization, a permanent distortion of the political financing of our country.

In the last federal election campaign the federal Liberal Party received just over 40% of the vote, the Canadian Alliance received 25.5%, the Bloc Québécois received 10%, the NDP received 8%, and the Tories received just over 12%. Under the Liberal plan, the Liberal Party of Canada would receive the number of votes cast, which would be 5.2 million times $1.50. They would permanently, every single year, from the year 2000 of the election campaign until 2004 or 2005 when we have the next federal campaign, have a cheque cut from the taxpayers for $1.50 times the number of votes they received in the last campaign. The Canadian Alliance, which received 3.2 million votes in the last campaign, would receive $1.50 for every vote cast.

The absurdity of this is twofold. First is the idea that taxpayers would be forced to finance political parties. Second is the permanent entrenchment of Liberal hegemonic power would now be financed by taxpayers against their will. Taxpayers would be forced to give the Liberals a financial advantage over other political parties. This would be entrenched in law. This is how the Liberals say they want to encourage political participation.

The best way to encourage political participation is to reform this institution so we can have debates in the House where there is more than one out of 180 Liberals actually sitting in the House participating in the debate. That is how we encourage more people to get involved in democracy. There is one Liberal in the House out of 180 Liberals. It is pathetic. If we want more people involved in political debates, in our political process and in political dialogue we need to reform the institution of Parliament and reform the mechanism by which we elect people.

We should inspire people by politics. We do not inspire people by entrenching a permanent financial skewing of the system whereby the Liberal Party of Canada will be sustained by taxpayer dollars in an unbalanced and unfair way that will permanently prop it up in this perpetual one party rule that we have in our country. It is completely destructive to our system of government.

Another part of the bill states that allowable expenses for nomination contestants will be capped at 50% of the writ period expenses allowed for candidates in a general election in that riding. I think the maximum a person can spend in a campaign in most ridings is around $68,000 to $72,000. Half of that, about $35,000, would be the cap for spending in terms of running a political campaign.

I, in principle, have a problem with limiting how much people can donate to a campaign. Capping on the spending side is not necessarily a bad idea but even capping on the spending side generally is unnecessary.

If we had mandatory reporting inside of 48 hours, if it were done electronically on the Internet, open for everyone to see the amount of money and who gave to whom and how much, I do not think we would need limits of the degree that are talked about in the bill because there is an assumed liability.

If a political party or an individual accepts a contribution, of whatever size from whatever organization or individual, there is an assumed liability associated with accepting that donation that they may be skewed with the perspective of that person, group or union. I think open disclosure about who gave how much to whom and why is perfectly okay.

I think it is fundamentally immoral and undemocratic to force citizens to pay politicians' election campaigns. It is against the very nature of democracy to reach into people's pockets and force them to finance political views with which they disagree. We have seen this with union contributions to political parties without asking the union's consent. Now we are talking about financing political parties, such as the Bloc Québécois which wants to separate from and destroy Canada. Asking people from my riding or any other riding to finance the destruction of Canada is wrong.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to talk about the proposed legislation.

It was pointed out by my hon. colleague that this is not so much a government initiative. It is about Parliament, democracy and action. It seems to me that the Liberal Party does not recognize the distinction between governing the nation and providing rules for democracy.

Democracy is the engagement of all citizens in Canada in choosing their government, criticizing their government and holding their government's policies up to scrutiny prior to passage. At election time, if people do not like what has been delivered, they can vote for another party.

The Prime Minister wants to leave some great legacy, although I am not sure why because he has had nine years and has done nothing. However he now feels that in his last year in office he should leave some kind of tangible legacy. He thinks this legislation is part of that legacy. This is no legacy. He has taken an autocratic approach. He has gone to the Liberal Party caucus on a Wednesday morning and told his members that they will vote for this. Then it is foisted upon all other political parties in the House, and the country has to live with one man's opinion on democracy. This cannot be. That is why the bill is wrong.

Bill C-24 is wrong in the fact that it is one man's opinion. It should have been by all party negotiations, by all party support, so that the parties representing all Canadians who voted in the last election could have had a say as to how democracy would work in Canada. The simple, fundamental, failing of the bill is that this is democracy in one man's opinion. That in itself tells us that the bill is wrong.

When history looks back on the legacy of the current Prime Minister, it will say that he failed. He has failed in many ways but he has failed again in the way he has foisted this upon all Canadians.

We all know that the bill denies corporations and unions from participating in the democratic process. Unions by their very selves are part of the democratic process because they represent their members. Corporations have been used in the developed world to create organizations that bring capital and labour together to provide the prosperity, the goods and services we enjoy in Canada and in the western world. They are also being denied participation through the bill.

The next time around we might find out that local groups and organizations that want to have a role in the democratic process will be deemed illegal. Rather than regulating segments of society, we should be controlling the political parties. We should not be controlling the people. It seems to me a fairly simple thing to do.

There is nothing in the legislation that controls political parties once they get their hands on the cash, and most of that cash comes from the taxpayer. Therefore they are not accountable any more to the people who donated it. Therein is a fundamental flaw. The government is saying that political parties are now going to be another institution on the government welfare role and they will get a cheque from the government, from taxpayers, whether taxpayers support their ideology or not. The taxpayer has no say. The voter has no say. The people who disagree with the philosophy of a party have no say. The cheque will be written. From the point of view of the Liberal Party, maybe that is not a bad thing.

I heard on the radio a couple of weeks ago that the former minister of finance seemed to have vacuumed up all the Liberal Party money available in the country. I think that was the terminology used. There is nothing left for the party itself and now it has to negotiation with the banker to defer its loan payment because its does not have the cash.

How convenient it would be if the cheque just came from the taxpayer in the mail every month? Then the party could send a part of that to the banker, no problem whatsoever. I am quite sure there was a significant amount of that kind of thinking when the bill was drafted.

Democracy is about engaging citizens. Citizens have been sidelined by the bill. We all know that elections are about knocking on doors, distributing literature, having town hall meetings and engaging society in public debate. I remember one former prime minister who said elections were no time for public debate, but that is by the way. Perhaps I think elections are the time for a public debate and this is when we engage citizens.

The proposed bill will marginalize citizens and make them feel that they are not making a meaningful contribution because their money is no longer be required. We as politicians will not have to go out and raise funds. Therefore we will not have to have policies that will resonate and with which people will have to agree if they are to donate to our political cause.

Instead, based on the votes at the last election, the cheque will come in the mail from the taxpayers, which it should not. It will guarantee that party which won the last election will get the biggest chunk of money and therefore has a leg up chance of winning the next election just based on the money from the taxpayer alone.

I cannot understand why the Prime Minister would think that this is a legacy. If the taxpayer is not engaged, if our young people are not engaged, if the taxpayer pays the bills, then democracy will be even more so an issue in a place called Ottawa.

Ottawa is a long way from my riding in St. Albert, Alberta. Quite a number of people in my riding I am sure have not been to Ottawa. They have not seen this marvellous place, this crucible of democracy. They can only see what is on television. It is somewhere way over there, thousands of miles away where those people make rules and decisions that seem idiotic, unexplainable and unfathomable. Yet it affects their daily lives and the way they participate in democracy.

Political scientists bemoan the fact that every time we have an election voter turnout gets smaller and smaller. They also point out a lesser known fact that it is the younger people who are not voting. If younger people do not vote, if they are not engaged in democracy, when they grow up, democracy will be on a very weak footing. Bill C-24 will just make it weaker.

Democracy is a fragile flower that has to be protected and defended. Unfortunately, periodically we go to war, although I hope we will not go to war soon. When we go to war, we go to defend freedom and democracy. People have understood what democracy is all about. As many people know, there is an organization called GOPAC, Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption, which tries to elevate the effectiveness of parliaments and legislatures around the world because in some places they are totally ineffective.

I always use Zimbabwe, the Ukraine and Peru as three examples where there are elected presidents and elected parliaments. However in all three cases the elected leaders have been implicated in murder because the parliaments are totally and absolutely ineffective. They have become totally sidelined and marginalized. With the bill before us, we are going down the same road in Canada. This institution has become marginalized where people talk all day and achieve next to nothing.

I want it recorded that I am totally and absolutely opposed to this bill.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I count it a great pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the constituents of Crowfoot to debate changes to the way that we finance political parties in this country.

The Canadian Alliance has been at the forefront in advocating comprehensive reforms both to the Senate and to the House of Commons. We believe in parliamentary reform. We believe that we need to have systemic change. We strongly believe that the country needs a more effective system of direct democracy to enhance the voices of average Canadians. The only time that citizens of the country really get an opportunity to let their voices be heard is every four years at election time, and we want to change this fact.

Canadians have effectively been excluded from participating in the forum that decides how their daily lives are going to be run and how their daily lives are affected. What we have in the country is a system of government that rules from the top down. The tendency of this and previous governments has been to increase their own power by employing closed door polices, policies that close out the average Canadian. Only an exclusive few, namely the cabinet, the executive council of government, which is influenced by special interest groups and large corporations or unions, are deciding our policies and our programs.

Effective communication between citizens and their elected representatives has been diminished. Politicians are not accountable to their electorate on a day to day basis and, rather than seeking to gain public confidence through listening and accommodating public concerns, elected officials have spent their time selling the government's programs and legislation to the people. In other words, rather than representing their constituents in Ottawa, federally elected officials have become Ottawa's representatives back to their constituents.

My colleagues and I on this side of the House are committed to changing this sad reality. We are committed to changing the autocratic means of decision making by restoring power to its rightful owners, the people of this country.

In direct democracy we have a number of ways to allow Canadians to have a greater voice. Recall is a procedure that effectively allows voters to hold their representatives accountable. It is another procedure which we believe can help put power back into the hands of the people.

As it stands now, elected officials cannot be dismissed by the very people who elected them, except at election time. As we have already heard today, in some parties where nominees or candidates are appointed to run for that party, the people may never have an opportunity except at the time of an election. This leaves the impression that politicians are above the rules and regulations that govern the average Canadian worker. Allowing an elected official immunity for misconduct or incompetence is an absurdity that has added to the current level of political apathy in the country, as witnessed in the last election where we had a voter turnout of approximately 51% of the electorate. People are losing hope in what they see happening in Ottawa.

Author William Mishler states:

Political attitudes and behaviour are learned. The political apathy and inactivity characteristic of large segments of the Canadian public are not intrinsic to man's basic nature. They are neither inevitable nor immutable. The decision to participate in or abstain from politics is to a substantial degree a conditioned response to a political environment.

Our current political environment, our current political system, has produced a nation of cynics who hold politicians in contempt. The perception, and in some cases the reality, that politicians can be bought has only added fuel to the fire.

Therefore, we want to change the undue influence that large corporations, the unions, associations or individuals have on political parties and thus the government. It is for this reason that we support certain aspects of Bill C-24.

In the last couple of years, allegations and evidence have surfaced regarding certain companies receiving government contracts based on past financial donations to election campaigns. Just this past fall, the former solicitor general resigned after the ethics commissioner ruled that he should not have intervened in a funding request from a college that was run by his brother.

In the spring of 2002, it was revealed that the member for Cardigan had lobbied the RCMP and Correctional Service Canada for funds for a police training program proposed by Holland College, a provincially run institution headed by his brother. The ethics counsellor's investigation was sparked by revelations that the solicitor general's department had issued a contract in May 2001 to the political pal of the member for Cardigan for $100,000 worth of strategic advice. Mr. Wilson was seeking clarification on whether or not this contract was awarded without following proper Treasury Board guidelines or rules.

Just over a year ago in another incident, Mr. Paul Lemire was convicted of defrauding HRDC of almost $200,000 in HRDC grants. This man had travelled with the Prime Minister during elections. He had travelled on a team Canada mission in 1996. He had donated to the election campaign in 1997. Subsequently he received millions of dollars in grants in 1998 while under yet another investigation for fraud, against Revenue Canada, for which, I might add, he was finally convicted.

Again, we need to avoid any perception, whether real, imagined or perceived, that elected representatives can be bought for future financial favours. Bill C-24, by limiting the amount of money that corporations can contribute to political parties, would help eliminate this perception. Therefore we support parts of Bill C-24 that would restrict the amount of contributions allowed to political parties, riding associations and candidates, including candidates for nomination or party leadership.

We do not, however, support the portion of the bill that would compensate political parties by way of direct public funding for the anticipated loss of revenues from the donations of large corporations and unions. We will never accept that because some parties may lose dollars from unions or large corporations, we then must replace them with more taxpayers' dollars in funding.

In the words of the Leader of the Opposition, Bill C-24 “is simply an autocratic solution to a democratic problem”, in that it would increase taxpayer funded subsidies to political parties. In other words, Canadian taxpayers would have no choice to which party their hard earned dollars would go. An NDP supporter may end up backing the Canadian Alliance, whereas our supporters may end up sending their money to help fund the Bloc Québécois.

Many people probably do not know that taxpayers already heavily subsidize political parties. Donations to a party are subsidized in that a tax credit of up to 75% is provided. The money spent by candidates is reimbursed by as much as 50% of their eligible expenses, while parties get back 22.5% of their total electoral expenditures after each election. To put a dollar figure on this, in the 2000 election these so-called rebates cost Canadian taxpayers just over $31 million to refund candidates and $7.5 million to refund political parties' eligible election expenses. Currently, by this one measure alone, taxpayers are footing the bill for approximately 40% of the funding during elections.

As stated earlier, we support the portion of this legislation that would limit the amount of money that corporations may give to parties. It may help in restoring Canadians' faith in the integrity of their elected representatives. We believe that if people want to donate to a political party, if they believe in that political party, if they believe in the policies of that political party or in the individual who represents them at a constituency level, then their contributions and donations are the way that political party is funded.

We are, however, adamantly opposed to the enhanced public funding of political parties. In a democracy it is simply wrong to force hard-working Canadians or citizens to support certain political parties. Every voter in the country should have the right to choose which party they support.

In closing, I would like to quote the Leader of the Opposition, who said that “the true nature of the bill is simply the replacement by the [Liberal] government of its addiction to large business and union donations with an addiction to taxpayer funding”. He said that the bill simply forces Canadians “to pay for political parties they do not necessarily support”.

This is why we will not support Bill C-24.