Bill C-24 (Historical)

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

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I thought I would point out that this recommendation mirrors a similar provision related to political financing that was introduced in 2003 in the Chrétien government's Bill C-24. We're reflecting the good work that Mr. Chrétien undertook in 2003.

Fair Elections Act

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take part in this debate. I will not presume to be as eloquent or as passionate as the previous two speakers, but I will do my best to speak on Bill C-23, known as the fair elections act. It is a bill I strongly support.

At the start, I want to commend the minister who has introduced and is shepherding the bill through the House of Commons. I think he has done an outstanding job in presenting the details and facts of the bill, which respond, frankly, to many of the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer and others in addressing the deficiencies of our electoral system in Canada.

However, we should all note on both sides of the House that we have one of the best electoral systems in the world here in Canada. We should be very proud of it, but we should never shy away from making improvements to it. I want to recognize the minister's work in this area as someone who gave one of the most impressive presentations to our caucus that I have seen in years, and I speak here as a member who has been here for over 13 years.

I want to return to the substance of the bill. As I mentioned, there are many issues that do need to be addressed. Frankly, this very comprehensive bill would do and implement 38 of the Chief Electoral Officer's past recommendations. I would like to go through them in detail.

I would caution members on both sides to stick to the substance of the bill. I know there are a lot of charges at Elections Canada, and I emphasize that they are “charges”. We should leave them to be investigated, but as legislators we should stick to the text of the bill itself.

First of all, the bill would protect voters from rogue calls and impersonation with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties for deceiving people out of their votes. All of these issues, such as impersonating elections officials and voter suppression, are addressed and taken very seriously in this proposed legislation.

I speak as someone who has been a candidate in five elections. My local election officials with Elections Canada have done an outstanding job, with some 90% and more being volunteers. They do an excellent job and need all the help they can get, and this proposed legislation would do that.

This bill deals with the so-called robocalls issue, involving the impersonation of others using these types of technologies. However, it should be noted that these types of technologies can be used legitimately if, obviously, the person calling identifies themself and the purpose of the call. Many members of Parliament on both sides use them to do electronic town halls, as I have done. It is a very good method, but I obviously identify who I am, why I am calling, and engage citizens in that way. The bill would deal with impersonation, the first item I want to emphasize.

Second, the bill would give law enforcement sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. It would allow the commissioner to seek tougher penalties for existing offences and empower the commissioner with more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting. A freer hand means that the commissioner would have full independence with control of his or her staff in investigations and a fixed term of seven years so he or she cannot be fired without cause.

The bill would crack down on voter fraud by prohibiting the use of vouching and voter information cards as replacement for acceptable ID, something one would presume the opposition would strongly support.

Studies commissioned by Elections Canada demonstrate mass irregularities in the use of vouching and high rates of inaccuracy on voter information cards. It is important to note, as the minister just pointed out in response to a question by the member opposite, that voters would still have 39 forms of authorized ID to choose from to prove their identity and residence. In order to ensure that election results are legitimate, especially in ridings where the vote is very close, I think it is entirely reasonable for us to require voters to present ID to show they are in fact eligible voters, as the parliamentary secretary to the House leader pointed out earlier.

Next, the bill would make rules easy to follow for all. Since the last election, the commissioner has had to sign 15 different compliance agreements with those who have breached elections law, some due to honest mistakes. Members of all parties have noted that the rules can be unclear. Complicated rules bring unintentional breaches and intimidate everyday people from taking part in democracy. That is why the fair elections act would make the rules for elections clearer, more predictable, and easier to follow.

Parties would have the right to advance rulings and interpretations from Elections Canada within 45 days of a request, a service similar to one provided by the Canada Revenue Agency. Elections Canada would also be required to keep a registry of interpretations and provide for consultations with notice to parties before changing them.

This is important and here I will point to someone who has been my official agent for a number of elections and the financial agent for the electoral district association in-between elections. He is a very reputable chartered accountant with Deloitte and Touche in Edmonton. He says that one of the things that is challenging as an official agent is that there are some grey areas. When he is not exactly certain what the rules are, he contacts Elections Canada and asks what exactly the rule is, and they always err on the side of caution. However, this is something that this legislation would help improve, by ensuring that all electoral district associations in all ridings across the country have one set of very clear and consistent interpretations.

We all have to recognize as members of Parliament that we may have an office manager, a campaign manager, and some people who may receive compensation. They do not in my campaign's case, as our official agents are typically volunteers. I am very fortunate to have someone who is very qualified, but these people are typically volunteers and need very simple, clear, and consistent rules so they know exactly what they are doing and can be sure they are following all the rules and regulations.

This legislation would also allow small donations and keep big money out. One of the changes we made as a government that I am most proud of was to ensure that corporations and unions and organizations would not control political parties. Individual donations are set to a maximum amount. That is one of the biggest changes that our government has made. Obviously, the previous government made some changes along those lines with Bill C-24, but our government made some further changes to ensure that citizens themselves would be the ones who controlled elections. As we all know, special-interest money can sometimes drown out the voices of everyday citizens. That is why this act would ban the use of loans to evade donation rules. It would also allow parties to better fund democratic outreach, with small and reasonable increases in spending limits while imposing tougher audits and penalties to enforce those limits. It would let small donors contribute more to democracy through the front door in a very transparent way, and block illegal big money from sneaking in the back door. The modest adjustments in the donation limit, up to $1,500 from the current $1,200, and election spending limits of 5% would let parties raise their own funds to reach out to Canadians. A total ban on union and corporate money would remain in place, as I mentioned earlier.

It would also respect democratic results. Members of Parliament and the Chief Electoral Officer sometimes disagree on an MP's election expense. This has happened in the past and will happen in the future for people from all parties. When that happens, the Canada Elections Act provides that the MP can no longer sit or vote in the House of Commons until the expense return is changed to the CEO's satisfaction. However, the removal of a democratically elected MP reverses the decision of tens of thousands of voters. The fair elections act would allow an MP to present the disputed case in the courts and to have judges quickly rule on it before the CEO seeks the MP's suspension. Again, this is a very fair, reasonable change that the minister is seeking to make.

Next, it would uphold free speech. The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the ban on premature transmission of election results infringes on freedom of expression. I can say as a westerner that it is interesting to be in Alberta waiting for the election results when various people are testing that, especially via social media today. The fair elections act would repeal this ban and uphold free speech.

It would provide better customer service for voters by focusing Elections Canada advertising on the basics of voting: where, when, and what ID to bring. Also, the fair elections act would explicitly require Elections Canada to inform disabled voters of the extra help available to them to vote. The act would also establish an extra day of advance polling. The proposed change would give Canadians access to four advance polling days: the 10th, 9th, 8th and 7th days before an election. This is one thing that I have supported very strongly and asked to be included in this legislation, because, depending on when the election is held, in our constituency I have an area where there are a lot of people who are working in and out of the country and in and out of the constituency. I have a very high seasonal population, especially in the Nisku area. So it is important to allow Canadians as much time as possible and as much access to voting as possible. We in Edmonton—Leduc have one of the highest advance polling numbers across the country. This follows along the lines of encouraging more people to vote.

I hear some of the comments and criticisms that the bill may be used in a partisan way. Absolutely not. In fact, I encourage Canadians and parliamentarians to read the bill and see what it is. Expanding the number of hours and days of voting is explicitly designed to increase the percentage of people who vote. Ensuring that we get as much information as possible out to people so that they know when and where they ought to vote is designed explicitly to allow more voters to have more opportunity to vote.

Another thing we would be doing along these lines is reducing congestion at the polls. The fair elections act proposes a number of practical changes that should make the voting process more efficient. It would streamline the process for appointing election officers and providing for additional resources for Elections Canada. It would allow for additional election officers to be appointed to ease the congestion of polling stations, which has been a problem in the past.

My time is up. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight, we voted in favour of every piece of legislation he just cited. The only place where we found fault was that lumped into the mandatory minimum sentences, they also included theft over $5,000, which means if that some teenager were to steal a car worth $5,001, that crime would fall under this category for mandatory minimum sentences. Nobody in their right mind would object to sentences for certain heinous violations that he outlined with great sensation.

The second thing is that we do not really need more apologists for the big banks in Ottawa here. They have plenty of champions.

The one thing for which I will give due credit to the former prime minister, Jean Chrétien, is that he opened the door for the legislation that we are seeing today on while-collar crime, which would put white-collar criminals in jail, when he banned political contributions from businesses, unions and corporations under Bill C-24. It was no longer necessary to suckhole to Bay Street. It was no longer necessary to treat bankers with kid gloves, because the bankers used to be the biggest donors to both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. The Liberal Party, to its credit, decided to end that.

Nobody should be able to buy an election. Nobody should be able to buy public policy. Nobody should be able to buy soft sentencing for white-collar criminals.

Now there is nothing stopping us from treating white-collar criminals as what they are, a scourge on society who do far more damage, one could argue, than the kid who steals the hubcaps off a BMW. The guy who drives that BMW might be guilty of far more heinous offences. We should reserve a jail sentence for him, not just for the kid who steals the hubcaps.

Canada Elections Act

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I generally enjoy my hon. colleague's speeches, but I would ask him to reflect on a wider issue, which is that this House, by a series of actions, has put itself in such a jam on political financing that it seems we have to keep on doing fixes.

First of all, the House passed Bill C-24, which many people lauded and thought was a wonderful thing, the effect of which is that fundraising on a larger basis is pretty well cut off. That has driven leadership candidates and others into raising funds on a micro basis and a whole new dynamic of political fundraising has been created. That dynamic has its difficulties as well.

In our particular case, the difficulties are in the Liberal Party but are about to happen to the Conservative Party, the NDP or the Bloc. They are also going to run into the same difficulties that the Liberal Party had, which is that there is only a limited pool of money. Therefore, candidates effectively are driven to getting loans, either from backers, or if they are no longer backers--

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans).

I remind all those who are watching at home that the bill was originally introduced, as my colleague said, as Bill C-54 in the first session of the 39th Parliament.

The bill would create restrictions on the use of loans by political entities governed by the Canada Elections Act, rules that we all respect during elections. We continually strive to ensure that transparency and accountability is within all of our parties.

The bill would establish a uniform and transparent reporting regime for all loans to political entities, including mandatory disclosure of terms and the identity of all lenders and loan guarantors. Total loans, loan guarantees and contributions by individuals could not exceed the annual contribution limit for individuals established in the Canada Elections Act. Only financial institutions and other political entities could make loans beyond the annual contribution limit for individuals and only at commercial rates of interest. Unions and corporations would be unable to make loans and financial institutions could not lend money at rates of interest other than the market norm.

Rules for treatment of unpaid loans would be tightened to ensure that candidates could not walk away from unpaid loans. Riding associations would be held responsible for unpaid loans taken out by their candidates.

As I indicated before, my constituents and I welcome initiatives to improve accountability in the federal government, as I believe all would at all levels of government.

Bill C-29 is a continuation of the groundbreaking work done by the previous Liberal government. My government showed great integrity by reviewing the responsibilities and the accountability of ministers, senior officials, public servants and employees of crown corporations.

A wide variety of concrete measures were adopted to increase oversight in crown corporations and audit functions were strengthened across the board. It was time for us to bring in tighter legislation to ensure transparency and accountability. This was not invented two years ago. The Liberal government worked on this for a long period of time to ensure transparency and accountability. Does everybody follow it? Clearly some members did not and still do not.

From his first day in office, our former prime minister reformed government so that everyone in the public service would be held to account. It was the Liberal government that re-established the Office of the Comptroller General of Canada, very important for all of Canada and its citizens.

It was the Liberal government that strengthened the ethical guidelines for ministers and other public office-holders and established an independent Ethics Commissioner. They are extremely important guidelines. It is important to have an Ethics Commissioner who assists and guides members of Parliament to ensure that we do the best job we can and that we do not get into conflicts of interest.

Many of these things were long overdue, and I am pleased the previous Liberal government brought these issues forward.

It was also a Liberal government that introduced a publicly posted recusal process for members of cabinet, including the prime minister.

Much of the legislation that has been brought in with respect to transparency and accountability is modelled after what the Liberal government introduced.

The Liberal government also put forward legislation to encourage whistleblowers and to protect them from reprisal.

In February 2004 our Liberal government put forward an action plan on democratic reform to strengthen the role of parliamentarians. We heard a lot of debate about democratic reform and about allowing people to have more free votes and an opportunity to have more public and free debate and so on. It was clearly followed when the Liberals were the government of the day.

Referring more bills to the House committees before second reading gives all of us an opportunity to make significant changes in those bills. Otherwise, if they go to committee after second reading, which was the norm until those changes were made in February 2004, there was very little we could do. The principle of the bill was there and we could skirt around it but we could not do a whole to change it. That has made a significant difference in the work that we all do in committee. Again, that was work that we did so members of Parliament would have more opportunity to influence and shape legislation.

We also implemented a three line voting system to allow for more free votes. That was quite important because it was not here in the first five years I was a member of Parliament. We all voted as a bloc with our party. Having the three line and two line voting system gave all of us as MPs on our side of the House when we were in government much more freedom to express what we really felt about various issues.

That was important and it is unfortunate that we lost it. We still have a lot of freedom on this side compared to the government party certainly but having the three line voting system was starting to introduce more democracy to the House of Commons.

We have also pushed for the establishment of a committee of parliamentarians on national security. The Liberal government strengthened audit practices in the public sector through a comprehensive initiative that included the policy on internal audit and to strengthen and further professionalize the internal audit function throughout the government through higher professional standards, recruitment of additional skilled professionals, training and assessments.

In 2004, my government delivered on a commitment to proactive disclosure. Since April 2004, all travel and hospitality expenses of ministers, ministers of state, parliamentary secretaries, their political staff and other senior government officials have been posted online on a quarterly basis. That is accountability. That is being open and transparent so that anyone can go online to see just how much travel and hospitality expenses were, where they were incurred and who went where. That is opening the door in many ways to what goes on in government.

Government contracts worth more than $10,000 are disclosed publicly and, again, posted online. Those were all initiatives by the Liberal government.

My government embraced transparency in key appointments, which was also very important. Through our action plan for democratic reform, parliamentary committees were empowered to review the appointments of the heads of crown corporations, something that should have been done a long time ago to ensure transparency and accountability to Canadians and taxpayers.

We brought increased transparency to the selection of Supreme Court justices and committed to expanding access to information. The Access to Information Act was extended to 10 key crown corporations that were previously exempt from this. We also presented a discussion paper to Parliament that proposes, among other measures, that the Access to Information Act be expanded to several federal institutions that are currently exempt. However, sadly, the Conservatives' secretive paranoia has led to the demise of access to information in this country, and that is a complaint we continually hear from citizens and the media on just how difficult it is now that has been closed down.

My government was the first to seriously limit both individual and corporate political contributions, as well as third party election spending. As my colleague attempts to take credit for all of the changes that were made, he needs to be reminded to look back because the real serious changes to the Elections Act came from the Liberals, not from the current government.

Our Bill C-24 was enacted in June, 2003 and came into effect on January 1, 2004, representing the most significant reform to Canada's electoral and campaign finance laws since 1974. It was well overdue, it was a good act and it made everything much tighter and more difficult but it was much needed. I am quite proud of the fact that our government did that. I am doubtful that the current government would have ever done it.

The act affected contribution limits, those eligible to make contributions, public funding at political parties, spending limits for nomination contestants and disclosure of financial information by riding associations, nomination contestants and leadership candidates.

The Liberal Party supports efforts to increase transparency and accountability in the electoral process. Our history has shown that and we will continue to support that.

We are the party that initially passed legislation limiting the role of corporations and unions in electoral financing and introduced the most dramatic lowering of contribution limits in Canadian history.

All of the Conservatives' accountability facades just build on the great success of the previous Liberal governments.

Candidates for the leadership of our party went beyond the requirements set out by Elections Canada in reporting loans to their campaigns. In contrast, the current Prime Minister still refuses to disclose the names of those who donated to his leadership campaign in 2002.

For ours, people can go online to see every cent that was donated, every cent that has been paid back, where it came from and what is still outstanding. We are not hiding anything, contrary to him.

Whatever it is, the Conservatives certainly do not want to talk about it so they have decided to spread misconceptions about this bill instead.

The Conservatives are misleading Canadians about the current state of the law concerning political financing. The Conservatives are suggesting that the current law allows loans to be made in secret and that Canadians are kept in the dark. That is not true.

The truth is that under the law that is currently in place, the details of all loans, including the amount of every loan and the name of every lender and every guarantor, must already be publicly disclosed.

In addition, the Conservatives are also suggesting that the current legislation allows for loans to be written off without consequence. Again, this is absolutely false. Under the current law, loans cannot be used to avoid donation limits and they cannot be written off without consequences. The proposed new law simply restates the existing rules.

The Conservatives seem to think that Canadians can be fooled into believing that this somehow constitutes a dramatic change but Canadians can see through their charade.

The government has been playing a game of delay and deflect, perhaps to draw attention from its recent troubles. By talking about political loans, clearly, the Conservatives are trying to make us all forget about their little visit from the RCMP at their own party headquarters, or perhaps they are happy to talk about political loans to distract from their latest disgrace, the former minister of foreign affair's security breach and subsequent resignation, or maybe they are trying to distract from their constant politics of division, in which they specialize, by pitting one province against another.

However, let us get back to the bill that is before us today. The bill was significantly amended following hearings by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. However, now that the bill has been reintroduced in the House and will be debated at report stage, the government has made three motions to effectively strip portions of these amendments from the bill.

I do not have time to get into all of the details of the amendments that we had put forward to strengthen this bill but I can comment on the Conservatives' motions to undo our work at the committee level.

Government Motion No. 1 would delete the Liberal amendment to allow for annual contributions to a leadership candidate.

Government Motion No. 2 would make it necessary for loans to be repaid annually, rather than at the point when the loan becomes due. Effectively, this would prevent candidates from taking extended loan repayments.

Government Motion No. 3 would delete the Bloc amendment that removed liability from registered political parties for loans taken by candidates.

The government, again, is not respecting the committee process, which is a process that we all talk about how important it is and yet, if we turn around and undo the work of committee, it clearly questions what was the value of the time and effort put into that.

In closing, I want to say that Canadians must have faith in the integrity of government and in the people who administer it. My government worked very hard to be accountable to the citizens of this great country and I am committed to supporting measures to enhance our prior work of building accountability, transparency and the public trust.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans).

Certainly the party on this side supports transparency and accountability with respect to election financing and the Canada Elections Act. At committee, I understand, there were amendments made. That is why the caucus on this side will support the bill, with the amendments, but I gather the government will be challenging some of those amendments. That would be unfortunate. We will have to see where that takes us.

The other thing I need to say in regard to the bill is that although it is being presented by the Conservative Party as some new and revolutionary way of proceeding with this type of arrangement with respect to loans to candidates, et cetera, many aspects of the bill are in fact similar to what is already in force and what was in force under the leadership of our Liberal government.

Having said that, I think the bill makes things clearer in some areas. In that sense perhaps it is an improvement, but I do not think Canadians will be deceived by the fact that many of the provisions outlined in the bill are already in the law.

Perhaps I should step back a bit. As I understand it, what the bill is trying to deal with is the fact of a candidate running in a federal election, for example, where the rules are very strict--and so they should be--with respect to how people can accept donations or from whom they can accept donations. Those rules are fairly clear.

The intent, as I understand it, is that this bill tries to deal with people who might try to sidestep those rules by receiving loans from parties from whom they otherwise would not be able to receive loans, or by receiving loans at interest rates that are less than fair market value, which itself would constitute a benefit, et cetera.

Or the loan might be advanced during a campaign and then be forgiven. For example, the candidate who had access to the loan money might find that suddenly a year later the person from whom the candidate received the loan is washing his or her hands of it. The candidate might be told that he or she does not have to repay the loan. That would become a contribution. If the amount of the loan exceeds the amounts currently allowed under the Canada Elections Act, then surely the law would also apply to a loan that is forgiven, and surely a lower interest rate loan at less than fair market value would also constitute a benefit.

I think it is a good thing that people are not able to get around the rules or do things through the back door that they cannot do through the front door. To the extent that this bill clarifies those particular aspects, that is a positive development. However, under the existing act, the loans could not be forgiven without consequence, nor could loans be granted under the current provisions of the law if they exceed the donation limits.

This really goes back to our government's Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing). Our government began that process and that bill was passed into law. It severely restricted the amounts that could be donated to candidates or parties by corporations and unions, and it also restricted the amounts that could be paid by individuals.

The Conservative government, in Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, has made further changes to that, and in fact reduced the personal contributions from $5,000 to $1,100 per year, per party. What has happened, of course, is that it has made it more difficult for political parties to raise money.

The provisions of Bill C-24 and Bill C-2 allow for Elections Canada to reimburse candidates based on how many votes they received in an election, so essentially what has happened is the burden and the cost of election campaigning has been transferred from corporations, unions, and to some extent individuals, to the taxpayers at large.

One can debate that philosophy. I for one think it is unfortunate that corporations and unions are precluded from participating in the political process. I would agree that limits need to be placed on that, but I wonder why it is so horrible for corporate Canada and the unions to not be able to support financially political parties or candidates of their choice within certain limits.

Nonetheless, Bill C-24 has passed and is the law of Canada, and Bill C-2 makes further changes to that particular regime.

However, I find it strangely ironic that this party brings in this bill, Bill C-29, and argues that it is a whole new regime with respect to loans and elections. As I said earlier, it is not really that new, but at the same time the leader of that party, the Prime Minister, has refused to disclose the names of all the individuals and organizations that donated to his leadership campaign in 2002. That strikes me as being very hypocritical.

Our party went through a leadership campaign a couple of years ago. All the participants made full disclosure of the sources of their funding and it is a matter of public record. However, for some reason the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada refuses to disclose the names of those people who donated to his leadership campaign. By refusing to do that, it raises questions about who was behind his leadership bid.

It may raise questions inappropriately because perhaps everything was totally appropriate, but by virtue of the refusal to disclose, it sort of leaves questions in people's minds of who was actually supporting his leadership bid, and whether they had a particular agenda that they were promoting or advancing.

If we have full transparency and disclosure, I think we take away that kind of ambiguity. I for one am in favour of full transparency and accountability.

Under the old rules, if a corporation wanted to donate to my election campaign, that donation would be fully disclosed by Elections Canada. It would be on my website. It would be everywhere.

If the voters of Etobicoke North did not think it was appropriate for me to accept $500 from BASF Canada because they thought I had a hidden agenda and the company was buying my influence about something, then that is a fair debate. I would be happy to have that debate.

Full transparency and accountability are absolute musts. Members of Parliament should be prepared to defend their actions in an election and in the House.

It has sometimes been said that this place is like living in a fish bowl. If people are interested in what we are doing, they can find out exactly what we are doing. If we travel or someone has sponsored our travel, that information is on the public record. The Office of the Ethics Commissioner has a whole variety of reports that are available publicly. I think that is totally appropriate.

People should not be able to take advantage of loopholes in legislation and stay clear of contribution limits by taking loans from people. That is in the current legislation. If Bill C-29 clarifies that, then that would be a positive development.

Our critic has worked hard on this file. A number of positive amendments were made at committee. I hope the government reflects on those amendments and does not try to reverse them because they would improve the bill. With that caveat, I will be supporting the bill when it comes to the House at a later stage.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to address the report stage amendments to the bill that would amend the Canada Elections Act regarding accountability with respect to loans.

As my hon. colleagues have already talked about, this is a moot point because it is very explicit under the law that is currently in place. Details of loans, including the amount of every loan, the name of every lender and every guarantee must already be publicized and disclosed.

What we want to know is the purpose of these changes or regression that the Conservatives want. May I say from the outset that it is in the interest of all Canadians to ensure that the federal government is accountable because we were sent here by the people to be accountable.

I am an accountant by trade. I was elected by the people of Don Valley East as their federal representative because they wanted someone deeply concerned about transparency and accountability. We are wondering about the need of some aspects in the proposed legislation. The committee looked at it and had made recommendations. Some things are very important that we need the committee's democratic process to run with.

When we look at some of the initiatives that were launched by the previous Liberal governments in 1993 and 2006, they were initiatives that made government more accountable and the whole process more transparent. We introduced the office of the Ethics Commissioner. The Ethics Commissioner is an important element that we need because we have to refer matters to him. We fostered the development to make the ethics officer independent from the Prime Minister's Office, which is important because the ethics officer is accountable to Parliament.

It was the Liberal government that also established a separate Senate ethics commissioner and it was the Liberal government that first established clear guidelines for public office holders. Furthermore, it was the Liberal government that restored the comptroller general function at each department and subsequently instituted an internal audit department. Being a person who comes from that environment, I think it is very important that we instituted those checks and balances.

What does the bill attempt to do? The bill attempts to build on the changes that were proposed by the committee. They attempt to build on the reforms that were originally introduced by the Liberal government, for example, electoral reform.

It was under the Liberal government that we introduced Bill C-24, which was a dramatic reform of political financing in Canadian history and it passed the strictest limits on the amounts of money that private companies and trade unions could contribute to a party or a candidate. Through the same bill, it was the Liberal government that first introduced public funding for political parties, an innovation that made political parties far less reliant on corporate or union financing.

Those types of transparencies have been introduced. The barriers that people had, the barriers to transparency were eliminated by bringing in those type of reforms.

We in the Liberal Party support the efforts to increase transparency and accountability in the electoral process and that is why the Liberal leadership candidates of the Liberal Party went beyond the requirements set out by Elections Canada in reporting loans to its campaigns.

In stark contrast, the Prime Minister still refuses to disclose the names of those who donated to his leadership campaign in 2002. How can the Prime Minister and his party sit there and talk about accountability when the Prime Minister himself thumbs his nose at accountability? How does his non-disclosure represent transparency? The Prime Minister has a litany of broken promises.

It is clear that the Prime Minister believed in an elected Senate. What is the first thing he does? He arrives in Ottawa and appoints his campaign manager to the Senate and makes him the Minister of Public Works. That is not transparency. That is deceitfulness and that is not the way transparency works. In fact, he makes a farce of transparency by thumbing his nose to Canadians and telling them to do what he says but then does the opposite of what he says.

Michael Fortier, the minister of the largest department in the federal government, is not accountable to this House. This is the House to which he should be accountable, but he is an unelected minister. Does the Prime Minister have two sets of accountability, one for his friends and himself and the other for the rest of Canadians?

We looked at this issue of loans. If the Conservative coffers are filled and they supply money to their own candidates, women, who will be the least able to go to the banks and get loans, will be the most marginalized. Is that what the Conservatives are looking for or are they looking to ensure that minorities do not come into government? What is their purpose? What is their hidden agenda?

When we look at the election platform of the Conservative government, at page 9 it states:

A Conservative government will:

Ensure that all Officers of Parliament are appointed through consultation with all parties in the House of Commons and...not just named by the Prime Minister.

What is the first thing the Prime Minister does? He turns around and arbitrarily appoints a loyal Reform Party member as head of the federal appointment process with absolutely no consultation with Parliament. That is not the way accountability and transparency works.

We have heard in this House numerous misdeeds that have been done by the Conservatives. We sit here and ask ourselves how anyone can even trust them. Canadians do not believe a word the Conservatives are saying.

It appears that the Prime Minister is standing up for his closest friends. He appoints unelected members as ministers, appoints his close friends and then basically thumbs his nose at every piece of legislation that deals with accountability and transparency. This is precisely the type of behaviour that fuels public mistrust of government institutions.

If the Prime Minister is concerned about accountability and transparency, when will he disclose who donated to his leadership campaign? Would this bill make him do that? We already have a bill that asks for it and he thumbs his nose at us. By changing the bill, what is he trying to? Is he trying to pretend that he has brought about some sort of transparency and accountability?

We have heard of ministers being mired in conflict of interest, in interference and in all sorts of farces. That is the type of accountability we do not need. We do not need a lesson in transparency and accountability from the government.

The Liberal Party is prepared to support a bill that was amended by the committee. This is how democratic systems work. We are living in a democracy, not an autocracy. We need to understand the reasons for the Conservatives being so gung-ho in trying to bring about regressive changes. Is it to their advantage? Do they want no minorities, no women? What is it that they want?

We will be placing this legislation under close scrutiny to salvage genuine reforms. We do not want these nonsensical reforms, this deceitful double-talk that has been coming from the Conservative benches. We want better accountability but it will be done through a democratic process at the committee level, not by bullying tactics.

Motions in Amendment

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this particular issue. I have to indicate that there are concerns out there with regard to issues of transparency and accountability, and certainly our party is all for that.

We also have to be careful that we are not coming up with a cure which is worse than the supposed problem here, particularly for women candidates and the issue of accessing money. We want to ensure that all candidates have the ability to run, to be able to finance a political campaign, and to do it in a manner which of course demonstrates both transparency and accountability.

Currently, it says all donations over $100 must be on the website. Now we will have to declare any contribution over $20 under the new legislation. People will know who has given. I think my colleague from Yukon was very clear with regard to what was happening in the United States with members of Congress. In a two year period they must raise millions of dollars in order to finance a campaign. There are no limits. They go out and raise money. Half of their two year term is simply going on the banquet circuit and dealing with lobbyists.

We do not have those problems. In fact, in this country we have very strict limits in terms of the amount of money that can be spent in any particular riding. I think that is what makes Canada unique.

When we talk with American congressmen and tell them that our limit is $75,000, they say to us, “That's not too bad for one day”. We tell them that is over a 35-day or 40-day period for a campaign and they are absolutely shocked. They ask us what we do with $75,000.

The problem with this bill is that it is a bit of overkill. What we are trying to say is that we want to make sure that moneys are available if candidates need it. In particular, we have seen cases where this particular amendment in this bill would cause a problem for women candidates borrowing money.

I think the issue is that everyone in the House believes in the accountability aspect. The question is that we also want to make it available for people who wish to run. Not everyone is wealthy and that again is another very good thing. Sometimes people do not have all the money in the bank when they decide to run. I think any kind of a restriction which would reduce that could be a problem.

At the moment, we know that Elections Canada is very clear about the reporting of loans for campaigns. We know that a riding association may loan money to the candidate in that riding. Again, this is all declared. It is all very clear. I think that is important.

The Liberal Party of Canada, during the leadership race, went beyond what was required in terms of the candidates being able to declare information.

If the goal of the bill is to achieve more accountability, then it fails in that regard. It builds new roadblocks in terms of people wanting to access the political arena, those people who want to run in an election. We want to encourage people, regardless of their financial background, to be able to run for election in this country. I think it is important that we do not have a House of Commons that only attracts those with money.

On both sides of the House we know, from time to time, how difficult it is when we are running a campaign and initial up front costs. They may be up front for signs, brochures, a campaign office, et cetera.

Obviously, some candidates do not have all that money at the beginning and they have to borrow. Then they have to wait for money to come in during the campaign. Again, I think that we have to try to have a balance in terms of what we are looking for in terms of this situation. Loans are an important part of this as is the declaration of those loans under Elections Canada and this legislation.

It is also important to keep in mind that there is a challenge now to try and secure money. Securing a loan from banks and financial institutions is important. Under these rules it would make it almost virtually impossible for candidates to go to a financial institution to secure the loan that they may need. If that were the case, then we are saying that they would be better off not running for office because they cannot get access to money.

We already have an open and transparent system in this country compared to that of the United States and others. Even under the old rules, before Bill C-24, we had to declare over $100 and it had to be accounted for. I think that shows how wonderful our system was. We had to declare it, there were limits on how much could be spent in a riding, the candidate's chief financial officer had to account for every penny, and statements were audited to make sure.

As members of Parliament, we know that if we do not declare donations, or if we are not able to account for every penny, we cannot take our seat in the House. That is important. We simply do not want that situation to occur. Obviously, financial institutions look at a person's ability to borrow money. This again would be a problem.

I think it is a bit misleading to suggest that the current state of the law regarding financial contributions to campaigns is a problem. In fact, I think it is probably tighter now than it has ever been. It is a bit misleading to suggest that loans are somehow made in secret. I do not see how they could be made in secret, because under the legislation, the Elections Act, if someone borrows money, that money has to be declared. The source has to be declared and the dates have to be declared.

I am sure there are members in the House who have borrowed money or had a line of credit from a bank. That has to be declared, as does the interest on it, et cetera, and that must all be paid. Again, I am not sure what the problem is. Every dollar and the lender have to be declared. We have to say whether the lender was an individual or an institution. That is already in the current legislation. All of it has to be declared. I am not sure what the problem is.

It is important that we have rules in place, but the suggestion in this legislation would restrict this even further. This would in turn disenfranchise people in regard to the ability to run. That is not what our system is about. Our system is about making sure that all candidates have equal access, and one of the sources of money they currently use is loans.

If a loan is not declared, there are consequences. There are stiff penalties. However, this legislation would make it even more restrictive, which I do not think Canadians want to see. They want to see transparency and accountability, but they do not want to see this becoming a rich person's game or, in other words, that in order to get into the House of Commons one has to be independently wealthy. I do not support that. I know our party does not support the change in this amendment.

I think it is important that we continue to say that we are different from other countries where raising money is certainly a preoccupation. As members of Parliament, my colleagues and I have more than enough to do in terms of dealing with the real issues of the day. If we have to go on the circuit of raising money and if we say that we are going to restrict loans to such a degree, I do not think it would be very productive. I am hopeful that members will keep this in mind when considering this amendment.

Again, I think we all want to see people from all backgrounds and all walks of life participating in the political process. We cannot tell them that if they do not have the dollars on hand then they cannot participate. That would not be good. It would be a roadblock to their participation. It would be a stumbling block. In fact, I think it would be a regressive move in terms of legislation.

Canada Elections Act

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. As a new member I am sometimes shaky on the rules of the House.

I would like to add that it was the Liberal Party that brought in Bill C-24, the most sweeping changes on electoral reform. In fact, when we talk about this particular bill, Bill C-54, the core of the issue for many Canadians is access and participation in the democratic process.

Many members seem to use Bill C-54 to focus on the Liberal leadership race. I think there is a desperate attempt to make an issue of something that was not an issue. It is about access to the democratic process and we as parliamentarians have a duty to ensure that all Canadians can access this process.

I represent a large riding with a population that is not as large as many small urban ridings but 65% of my riding are aboriginal people. However, because of systemic policies and some of the laws in this country, the aboriginal people have been marginalized. For instance, in one centre in my riding where mining is booming and the price of minerals is going through the roof, the first nations have not had access to resource benefit sharing. There is inequity and it is through the history and the policies of this country that have created inequity. As parliamentarians it is our job to ensure that we have a process in place where we have equal access.

I represent many people in my riding who do not have the ability to access this type of loan from a bank because they do not have the capital. However, that is not due to not wanting it or not working hard enough. People did work hard but we come from a whole different cultural background where our industry was the land. We did not have financial institutions in the same tradition as western Canadians, or western civilization as we might want to call it. We had our own civilization. Our industry and our economy was based on the land. We did not have these types of institutions so we do not have a history of participating in these types of institutions. We did not have a framework where we built up capital and equity.

Therefore, this whole framework, which is at the core of this bill, is actually alien to people, but not out of choice. Many new Canadians who have come here are working hard and paying their bills but they are living cheque to cheque. We all know people who reflect that reality for many Canadians and in fact we know that probably the majority of Canadians live in a lifestyle where they may not have access--

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to complete my remarks this morning on Bill C-54.

I should also say at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the member for Churchill.

Members of Parliament are honest people. Unfortunately, we have been tarred, I think unjustly at times, by the public. Most people in the chamber would agree that everything should be transparent with respect to where we raise our money or what loans we have backing us. I for one believe that anything I do can be posted on a website, I will be accountable for it, and people can hold me accountable for it because they can elect me or not.

It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has not been forthcoming. In his 2002 leadership campaign he failed to disclose the sources of the people who donated to his leadership bid. I would like to know that and I think many Canadians would like to know who supported the Prime Minister in his leadership bid in 2002. Was it the coalition for guns? Was it Canadian big business? Who was it? Right now we can only speculate and I think the Prime Minister would do himself a service if he came clean.

I should contrast that to the Liberal Party's last leadership campaign and conference in which the leadership candidates went above and beyond everything that was required by Elections Canada.

We need rules and regulations, but I believe that full transparency is a much more powerful tool.

I recall one incident that had to do with the Ethics Commissioner. I was invited to go to the Grey Cup in Ottawa a few years ago by some big company that I knew about. Everyone knew the name. I do not recall having any dealings with it. I told my staff to phone the Ethics Commissioner's office to find out if this was appropriate and get its blessing.

A member of my staff spoke to someone at the Ethics Commissioner's office and the person said that because the Grey Cup was such a big event I would be sitting with corporate people from that company and there would be no time to talk business. The individual thought it was inappropriate. To me it seemed totally counterintuitive. I would have thought the opposite would have been the case. I did not go to the Grey Cup.

That is the problem when one tries to regulate and micromanage things at that level. Let us be accountable and transparent. We have a very good transparent and accountable system in the Parliament of Canada. People vote frequently, sometimes far too frequently as they see it and certainly as many of us see it, but they have a vote. They can kick us out if they see that we took a donation from a company or individual who they feel is inappropriate.

I recall being the treasurer of the riding association of the former member for Etobicoke North who received a large donation, I would say in the thousands of dollars. That conjures up thoughts of $40,000 or $50,000, but it was not even $10,000. I talked to the member at the time. I was the treasurer, a part time volunteer. We discussed it and decided that it was inappropriate to accept a donation of what I will say was $5,000 at the time because there was clearly an agenda, at least in our judgment, by the company making the donation. We sent back a letter, thanked it profusely, and said we felt it was inappropriate.

I have had donations of $200, $250 from corporations and those are basically the size of any corporate donations. I have had some slightly larger over the years. Is a $250 donation going to buy my position in the House of Commons where I am representing the people of Canada? Of course it would not. If that were the case, I would send the cheque back. No amount is going to change my mind about a position I am going to take. I am going to take a position that is, in my judgment, in the best interests of all Canadians. That can be a judgment call and people would agree to disagree.

However, I think we get so hung up with these rules and regulations. I for one voted against our government's bill, Bill C-24, election financing, and tried to work a compromise out with the then Prime Minister to limit corporate donations but not to the extent that they were then or are today.

I do not think the bill accomplishes that much. It sort of reinforces what is already on the books. We cannot use loans to circumvent the donation limits. That is already there and we have to disclose these loans.

Certainly, I support transparency, accountability, and I am going to ask our critic for his best advice once the bill goes to committee, but at this point I am not sure it adds any value.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my time is quite limited, but I will try to summarize my views on Bill C-54 in which I am very pleased to participate today.

I guess I come at this particular issue from the point of view of transparency. I think as members of Parliament we should disclose the sources of any funding, the sources of any loans, but I am not particularly excited about the limits.

We introduced in our mandate Bill C-24, the elections financing act. In fact, I was the only member of the Liberal caucus at the time that voted against the bill at report stage. I felt that it was wrong-footed. I understood that the time the need to restrict corporate donations and in fact a group of us tried to work out a compromise and limit corporate donations to $10,000, but that was not to be.

I have in my riding companies that have branch plants and operations across the country. Under the previous regime of Bill C-24, they could donate $1,000 and now they cannot even do that. If they have branch plants they might want to support the political process and give $250 to the MP or the candidate in a certain riding. I think it is unfortunate that we have brought in these limits for unions and business. I do not think it is appropriate.

In 1998 the Canadian banks wanted to merge. They were very anxious to do that. The banks, it is well known, used to provide huge donations to all the political parties and what good did it do them?

I think the idea that corporate donations buy influence is vastly overstated. I totally believe in transparency, but my problem with this particular bill is that it tends to have some unintended consequences in the sense that it might preclude people who do not have access to cash to get involved in the political process and take out a loan.

The current provisions of the legislation already call for them to repay the loans and they have to do it within the context of the loan limits, of the donation limits, so they cannot avoid the donation rules through loans. Therefore, I am not sure what this new bill is all about, other than restating what is already on the books.

The member for Winnipeg Centre talked about the laundering of money. I think that is a pretty strong statement. I know our country has brought in one of the strongest anti-money laundering regimes in the world. If this was a money laundering operation, I would certainly object to it, but I know my colleague from Vancouver Quadra is the expert on this. I know he will be trying to improve the bill at committee.

I certainly hope, when the bill comes back to the House, it will be new and improved and then I will be happy to have a look at it.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I should begin my comments on Bill C-54 by recognizing and paying tribute to the former leader of the New Democratic Party who most recently sat in the riding of Ottawa Centre, because it was he who blew the whistle on the fact that the political donation regime in this country left a loophole that was so outrageous it was bound to be exploited and abused.

Mr. Broadbent had the sense to recognize that even though the amounts of money that can be donated to a political campaign or to a political party had been reduced, by allowing these huge loans, which never really have to be paid back, it was obvious that somebody with a lack of ethical standards would take advantage of that loophole and would begin to act as if there were no financial limitations. I recognize Mr. Broadbent for raising this issue for us in his ethics package.

I am gratified that today we are dealing with a bill in the House of Commons that will close this last remaining loophole, one of the most serious loopholes in our election financing laws, because we start with the basic premise that nobody should be able to buy an election in this country, or a politician, for that matter. When we are dealing with such massive amounts of money, the point that was made by the House leader of the government was that a politician or a political party is going to owe somebody a great deal. They are going to owe somebody an obligation, a debt, and it is not healthy for the interests of democracy to have some corporate sponsor pulling the strings of politicians through this enormous debt of gratitude that is owed. That is the fundamental principle here. That is the direction in which we believed we needed to go.

These loans were a loophole that simply had to be plugged. The most egregious example, I suppose, and what really caught the public's imagination, was during the Liberal leadership campaign. Even though businesses and unions were not allowed to donate a single dollar, they could loan tens of thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and individuals could loan far in excess of what they were allowed to donate.

Then, through the very loosey-goosey standards and rules that exist in terms of the repayment of those loans, if the loan was not paid back within 18 months it was deemed to be a donation, albeit an illegal donation. We allowed this contradiction to exist in our election finance regime. Some would say it was by design that the rules put in place by the previous government to put limits on election financing left this convenient loophole there, with it knowing full well their people would stumble upon it, seize on it and use it.

The other example that turned people's heads and simply sounded the alarm that this had to be addressed was the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. Even though a business is not allowed to donate anything and a union is not allowed to donate anything, his business loaned the Mississauga--Streetsville riding association $176,000 in one loan, I believe it was, and another $60,000 in another loan.

How can that be? It is a contradiction that we have allowed to evolve, because if that loan is not paid back within the 18 months, it is deemed to be a donation, and then we will have allowed a business to make a donation, which it is not allowed to at all, and a donation in the amount of a quarter of a million dollars, which is clearly in excess of anything contemplated when we set the donation limits for individuals at $1,100 per year.

This had to be done. I do take some recognition of the fact that we played a role in bringing this about. It was the NDP that moved this as an amendment during the Federal Accountability Act debates, but I also caution that we perhaps have not gone as far as we could. There are two things in the bill that worry me somewhat.

Even though we cannot pass legislation retroactively to give us some satisfaction on the debacle of the Liberal leadership loans or the loan of the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, we can have legislation that is retrospective in nature. We can look at ways to address these loans that drew the public's attention to this issue to make sure there is some compliance with at least the existing regime.

The second thing that we find fault with regarding this legislation is we cannot understand for the life of us why the date of implementation will be six months after the bill receives royal assent. My colleague, the government House leader, suggested that perhaps there is a way we could speak to the Chief Electoral Officer and garner support for the idea of a more rapid implementation date. I would urge the government to do so, because as the bill is currently drafted, it is possible we could have another federal election under the current set of rules which allow these political loans.

Now that it is common knowledge that there is no law against lending someone $100,000, even though the donation limit is only $1,100, a lot more people will be doing it if it is allowed. It would be morally and ethically wrong to allow another federal election to take place under the current set of rules. Therefore, I would urge members when the bill gets to committee, to look favourably on the idea of an amendment, which we would be happy to put forward, that the date of implementation should be when the bill receives royal assent.

This is much in the same spirit that we looked at the Federal Accountability Act. We did not see any reason to delay the implementation of the election financing rules associated with the accountability act, even though the Liberal Party urged us strenuously to delay and delay and delay because the Liberals wanted to get their leadership convention out of the way. That is certainly one of the things we would like to see.

I heard my colleague from the Liberal Party try to make arguments against this bill. Even though I do not take this remark seriously, I do give him credit for at least having the courage to try to be creative to find some reason why this bill is a bad idea.

I do have to counter one of the arguments he made which was completely spurious. He suggested that by banning these loans or putting severe limits on these loans, it would actually act as a barrier to those who do not have access to friends with money from entering into politics. It is like arguing night is day, because that is absolutely 180 degrees the polar opposite of what any cursory reading of the bill would tell us. In actual fact, the idea is to take big money out of politics and to take away the unfair competitive advantage that people who are well connected currently enjoy. The idea is to level the playing field.

That was the purpose of Bill C-24, which the Liberals introduced when they first put limits on donations. The idea was to get big money out of politics so that nobody could buy influence. That was certainly the argument put forward under Bill C-2 when we further reduced the donation limits to $1,100.

It is courageous to argue that this is actually the inverse. It takes a lot of guts to stand there and try to make that argument, but we cannot let that go unchallenged. If anything, this is an enabling measure that does level the playing field so that all of us, if we need to borrow money to get our campaign started, have to go to a recognized lending institution. No single person would be able to underwrite or co-sign a loan to an extent greater than the person would be allowed to donate in that year. It is eminently sensible because if there is a default on that loan and the loan becomes deemed to be a donation later on, then the donation would not be in excess of what the person would have been allowed to donate. It seems common sense to me.

A further innovation and protection here is that we do not want the precedent set by Paul Hellyer and the Canadian Action Party to set the tone. In that case, he simply wrote off the $800,000 debt to the Canadian Action Party. We do not want to see John Rae writing off the debt to Bob Rae. We do not want to see Mr. Mamdouh Stephanos writing off the $200,000 debt which was loaned to the leader of the official opposition. That would be fundamentally wrong because then those guys would have made a $200,000 loan which became a donation which they then forgave. Talk about buying influence in a campaign. What about the $100,000 that Marc de la Bruyere loaned to the leader of the official opposition?

We have every reason to believe that the leader of the official opposition will probably pay back those debts because he will have the ability to fundraise within the $1,000 limit and because he is in a fishbowl and everybody is watching what he is going to do with his campaign debts.

What about the losers in that race? For instance, I used the example of John Rae, a senior executive with Power Corporation, being able to simply write off and forgive the $840,000 that he loaned to his brother, Bob, to run in that campaign. That would be a travesty. That would be an absolute abuse of the election financing laws as we know them today.

With this bill, it is deemed that if the loan is not paid back in an acceptable period of time, or the time frame negotiated between the lender, a bank, and the borrower, or 18 months, whichever comes first, it would be the riding association and the political party of the riding association that would have to assume that debt. That would make sense. In fact it would help from an equity point of view for the person borrowing the money, because the person is actually borrowing the money with the guarantor of the political party that the person belongs to. The financial institution would have some comfort. The person would not have to find a financial backer to co-sign that loan; in fact, the person would not be allowed to.

If, as I have done, one needed to borrow $20,000 to get the campaign started, one would need to find 20 guarantors at $1,000 each. No one person could co-sign the loan. That is the way it should be. If the person cannot find 20 people to sponsor his or her entry into politics, perhaps that person should rethink whether he or she should be going into politics or not because the person is not going to get very far anyway.

I think this is eminently fair. It has covered the three conditions that the NDP raised during the debate on the Federal Accountability Act. I completely reject the Liberals' argument that there could be perverse consequences which would limit entry into politics.

Again my colleague from Vancouver Quadra very cleverly planted the idea that perhaps Equal Voice would be disappointed with this initiative, as if this would somehow be a barrier for more women to enter politics. I would argue that the absolute inverse would be true, because this will level the playing field so that well-connected people with corporate sponsorship, like we saw in the Liberal leadership race, will not have a competitive advantage over a woman without those connections. Again it levels the playing field. We have not had any indication how Equal Voice would react to this bill, but from what I know of the people in that organization, I think they would support this idea.

I wish we would not reform the election financing regime in such a piecemeal fashion. There are a number of other things that the NDP has been calling for. One I will speak to briefly is that now that Bill C-16 has passed very quietly and without fanfare over in the other place, it is now law and we have fixed election dates, I believe we should have year-round spending limits. Now that we know elections will be held every four years on a fixed date in the month of October, there should be some regulation on the amount parties can spend on advertising not just during the writ period but outside the writ period as well. That is a necessary natural consequence of having fixed election dates. I would look forward to some movement from the government in that regard.

I also wish we had done something about the age of political donors. I am very critical of the idea that we can actually launder money through our children's bank accounts in a way to exceed the donation limits allowed by law. That seems to be acceptable in that when it happened in the Liberal leadership race and we filed complaints with the elections commissioner, nothing came of it.

I guess if an 11 year old wants to donate $5,000 to a political candidate, nobody thinks twice. When it is twins and they both decide to donate $5,400 each to the same candidate, nobody thinks twice. Throughout the whole country Canadians shook their heads when they saw that. I would like to see us have the courage to move forward and say that this is simply wrong.

It is wrong to launder money through anybody's bank account if the purpose is to defraud the system and exceed the donation limits allowed by law, whether it is one's mother-in-law or brother. A person is not allowed to donate the maximum himself or herself and then sneak a cheque under the table to his or her buddy and say, “Send this along to the Liberal Party for me too”. It is against the law to conspire to defraud the system. We are silent on that and even when we file complaints on that, the elections commissioner seems to be silent on it.

The NDP tried to move an amendment to Bill C-2 which said that underage people could donate money, but if they did, it would be deducted from the total amount their legal guardian was allowed to donate. In other words, if a 14 year old felt strongly enough about politics and wanted to donate $100 of the money he or she earned at the burger joint, more power to him or her, but that meant the child's parents or legal guardians would donate $100 less that year. If people get a tax advantage from being children's legal guardians, they have to be legal guardians in this era of politics unless and until the children reach legal age as well. That would have been a courageous move and would have cleaned up one of those embarrassing situations that we allow in our system currently.

Let me speak briefly about the outstanding issue that we are all worried about, which is the issue of the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, who is not a Liberal any more, but when the loans took place he was. Now he is a Tory.

I do not know how we are going to address this, but we should remind everybody, and maybe through this speech we will serve notice, that no one's sweetheart can bail out somebody like that. If someone borrows $50,000, as many of the people did in the Liberal leadership campaign, and it is not paid back quickly, the candidate cannot pay it off because he or she would be exceeding the limit. The candidate cannot have a guardian angel donor show up out of nowhere and bail him or her out. The money has to be paid back within the donation limits.

The money was raised within the donation limits of the act, which is $1,100 per year. I do not see how some of these candidates are going to do so. The burden of proof is on them to pay it back in compliance with the law. Some of these failed leadership candidates are now raising money for the next federal election and they are still asking people for money to pay off the debt they incurred.

As I say, it is not that tough for the winner to pay off the debt. It is a lot tougher for the losers, the ones who did not win. It has to be the $1,000 limit. We are watching. These people are in a fishbowl and we will be filing complaints. If they do not pay it back at all and it is deemed to be a donation, then what? I will tell the House what.

Under the current election laws, and this should be fixed too, they can take out another loan to pay off the first loan and buy themselves another 18 months. Then the debt gets lost in the sands of time and we will have been complicit with somebody conspiring to defraud the election system. Those are the people on this list that I have right here.

Some of the people in the Liberal leadership campaign might find themselves in that situation. It would be wrong, but they may be leaning that way and our Elections Act is not tough enough to stop that from happening. I was disappointed, in fact I was shocked to learn that would be allowed, that they could take out a second loan to pay off the first loan and buy themselves another 18 months. Who is going to be around to police whether the second loan gets paid off three or five years down the road? This is really not satisfactory.

If we are serious about levelling the playing field, about taking big money out of politics and about making sure that nobody can buy an election in this country, we have to go all the way. We should put together an election financing regime that we can all be proud of. We could be an international centre of excellence. That would make me proud.

I take some pride, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that it was the former leader of our party, the hon. Ed Broadbent, who brought this issue to light and said, more or less, that no further federal elections should take place until we clean up the election financing regime in this country. The NDP tried to do it during the debate on the Federal Accountability Act. It seemed to take a little longer than we thought to resonate with the ruling party, but it seemed to have at least accepted the need for this now.

We are critical that there will be a six month wait after the bill receives royal assent. We expect this to get a rough ride from the Liberal Party. I am not trying to state the obvious, but if one cannot raise or borrow money, one is not going to be in any hurry to pass this bill.

We hope the Liberals do not stall it unnecessarily, but I think the government should act quickly to take that six month proviso out of the way, implement it as soon as we can, and get it through the House, so that the next federal election can be run with equal opportunity for everybody and that no unfair competitive advantage go to those who might enjoy a corporate sponsor or guardian angel donor.

Federal Accountability Act

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-2, the so-called accountability act, a bill that was put together with a great deal of haste and one which has returned from the other place with a number of important amendments. I would like to speak to the spirit of this bill and the underlying motivations that seem to have resulted in legislation which, as we have discovered, is technically flawed in many respects and substantively flawed in its objectives.

I appreciate the work of the senators in the other place from both parties, in particular Senator Joe Day who has put forward reasonable amendments to make this legislation better. There were 30 days of hearings in the other place, 150 witnesses and a lot of very positive work.

When Bill C-2 was presented in this House it was done so under the political environment of a recent election and the concern that many Canadians had about ensuring that the taxpayers' money was protected from abuse. From the outset many of us were uncomfortable with the rapid and now we see irresponsible rush in which the President of the Treasury Board proceeded. Liberal members raised these concerns at committee.

In fact, the vast majority of amendments proposed by the Liberal members on the Bill C-2 committee last spring were defeated by the NDP-Conservative coalition. This was done for political and partisan reasons. It was clear then that public relations and scoring cheap political points were more important than bringing forward legislation that would in fact live up to its name.

After hearing more than 140 witnesses through many hours of hearings, the Senate committee under the leadership of Senator Day has placed before us amendments that we should seriously consider. Notwithstanding the constant flow of feigned outrage from the Treasury Board president, it would be totally irresponsible for the government and the House to ignore reasonable amendments that seek to strengthen the legislation thereby ensuring that it is in line with the charter and in the public interest.

In fact, it was the Treasury Board president who suggested in his own appearance before the Senate that the bill had been, to use his exact words, “examined with a microscope”. We now find out that this microscope was more like a periscope: long on rhetoric and narrow in focus.

David Hutton, coordinator of the Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform, described the drafting process that was employed to craft Bill C-2 as “deeply flawed”. He said that the bill “is complex and is full of loopholes when you dig into it. I feel that the committees have been given an impossible task, namely trying to turn this into effective legislation that meets intent”.

In addition to repairing numerous drafting errors which should have been caught before the bill was introduced, key amendments that came back include political financing. This is an area of particular importance to me, as it is to all members of the House of Commons. Not only am I a member of Parliament but, as many other members have done, I have run campaigns for other candidates and have worked a lot of elections. I was the president of the Nova Scotia Liberal Party sitting on the national executive and got involved in the financing of political parties.

It is important that we ensure that any new political donation regime does not unfairly restrict the participation of political parties in debate. I suggest the proposed change to $2,000 per year, the limit that came back from the other place, is an important change.

In 2003 Bill C-24 was introduced and passed by the Liberal government of former prime minister Jean Chrétien. It radically changed how elections are financed in Canada, notably reducing the amount of allowable donations to political parties. The current President of the Treasury Board acknowledged the usefulness of Bill C-24, which in fact contained a clause for its review, but there has been no review. There has just been introduction in this bill of more political reform, which I do not think makes a lot of sense.

Clearly, the government has failed to produce any evidence that the existing limits are undermining the electoral process at the federal level. Furthermore, political donations play an important role in our democratic system. Limiting them too strictly has the potential to limit participation of smaller political parties, as well as all Canadians who wish to participate in the political system.

Why would the government introduce these strict limits? If we look across Canada at what provinces are doing in their own electoral districts, it is pretty interesting. I would like to take a minute to let people know what those limits are across Canada right now.

In Newfoundland and Labrador there are no contribution limits to political parties.

In Prince Edward Island there are no contribution limits.

In Nova Scotia there have been none. In fact, last week new political financing legislation was brought forward into the House of Assembly in Nova Scotia. I believe the limit there would be $5,000.

In New Brunswick there is a maximum of $6,000 during a calendar year to each registered political party or to a registered district association of that registered political party.

In Quebec contribution limits are a maximum of $3,000 to each party, independent member and independent candidate, collectively, during the same calendar year.

Ontario has contribution limits. The maximum contribution a person, corporation or trade union may make is $7,500 to each party in a calendar year and in any campaign period; $1,000 in any calendar year to each constituency association; an aggregate of $5,000 to the constituency associations of any one party; $1,000 to each candidate in a campaign period; an aggregate of $5,000 to candidates endorsed by any one party.

In Manitoba individuals may contribute a maximum of $3,000 in a calendar year to candidates, constituency associations or registered political parties, or any combination.

In Saskatchewan there are no limits on contributions.

In Alberta the limits are $15,000 to each registered party, $1,000 to any registered constituency association, and $5,000 in the aggregate to constituency associations of each registered party, and then further regulations in any campaign period: $30,000 to each registered party, less any amount contributed to the party in the calendar year.

In British Columbia registered political parties or constituency associations may accept a maximum of $10,000 in permitted anonymous contributions. Candidates, leadership contestants and nomination contestants may accept a maximum of $3,000 in permitted contributions.

In Yukon there are no contribution limits.

The Northwest Territories has what seem to be the strictest limits. An individual or corporation may contribute a maximum of $1,500 to a candidate during a campaign period, but a candidate may contribute a maximum of $30,000 of his or her own funds in his or her own campaign.

These election limits that have been brought in dramatically exceed any other election financing reform that has been brought in across Canada, reforms that have been brought in, in provinces led by a whole series of different types of government, different parties in power.

One witness at the Senate committee, Arthur Kroeger, the chair of the Canadian Policy Research Networks and a former deputy minister in five federal government departments, told the Senate committee:

What problem are we trying to solve? Were there abuses when the level was $5,400? I do not know. I do not remember reading of any such abuses. Were there abuses that merit the reduced levels of contributions that were permitted by business and unions? If you cannot identify the problem that justifies a provision in the bill, then have you lost balance and have you pushed things too far? Those are questions in my mind...Do we truly need to go that far to achieve good governance and are we risking harm? It is possible.

When we look at what provinces across the country have done, that would seem to back that up.

It is certainly not just Liberals who are making the case that these stringent donation limits are unreasonable and unnecessary. Lowell Murray, a Progressive Conservative senator from the great province of Nova Scotia, a highly respected figure and a former close adviser to two Progressive Conservative former prime ministers, the Right Hon. Joe Clark and the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, said in the Senate recently, I believe on third reading, after the committee hearings, “I would delete from the bill all the provisions respecting political financing”.

There are a lot of very interesting comments, but let me just stick to the political financing piece. He talked about examples of how this legislation is flawed. He went on to say:

Another example is in the creation of a directorate of public prosecutions. This may or may not be necessary--probably not--

To get back to financing, he said:

This bill purports to introduce further reforms to our political financing and elections laws. The committee has recommended amendments to the government's proposals. I am more persuaded by the argument of Professor Peter Aucoin, who told the committee that those proposals have no place in the omnibus Bill C-2 and should be considered as part of an overall examination of elections and political financing law.

He said later in his speech:

The examination of our political financing and election laws that I believe is necessary must go forward, in my view, and my amendment would remove from Bill C-2 the various provisions relating to political financing in the hope of a principled examination of this whole field, a principled examination of our electoral and parliamentary democracy, by people who have relevant experience in it.

That speaks directly to the issue of this bill being too large and too cumbersome, trying to do too many things for political reasons and not being based on evidence nor history.

Increasing the maximum personal contribution to $2,000 from the proposed $1,000 would still be a significant reduction from the current $5,400 that came in under Bill C-24, but I would support the $2,000 limit.

There are many other amendments that involve access to information and technical changes that were necessary because it was rushed legislation. Certainly, the clearest proof of that was the recent attempt to alter the legislation to cover up the practice of the Conservative Party of not counting delegate fees as political donations, which was clearly not the intent of the act. It was never understood by any political party that I know of as being the case, and it has been acknowledged by Canada's Chief Electoral Officer as being the wrong policy.

One of the advantages of the other place looking at this so carefully was that it gave people a chance to make some comments, people who have expertise in this area. I had mentioned before Mr. Kroeger, the chair of the Canadian Policy Research Network. He also said:

If the legislation had been written by a government with more experience in office, it may not have some items in it that it does, which I will explain in a minute.

He went on to explain, and then said:

There is the other problem that some of the contents of legislation were, I think, developed during an election campaign, and there is always a risk of a bit of overkill for the sake of achieving a public effect--

Dr. David Zussman, the Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management at the University of Ottawa, indicated, in talking about the new positions in this bill:

In each case, we are creating new positions at considerable cost to the taxpayers of Canada, so we have to ask ourselves simply will these costs produce results that will make a tangible difference or a marginal difference over the information and analysis that we already have.

Alan Leadbeater, deputy information commissioner of the Office of the Information Commissioner, suggested:

--Bill C-2 would authorize new and broad zones of secrecy, which will have the effect of reducing the accountability of government through transparency...Bill C-2 will reduce the amount of information available to the public, will weaken the oversight role of the Information Commissioner, will increase government’s ability to cover up wrongdoing and shield itself from embarrassment.

These are a number of comments that came from the hearings that were held in the other place.

This is a deeply flawed bill. I support accountability and I support some of the measures that are in this bill, but these amendments that have come back from the other place are worthy of everybody's attention and support.

It is obvious to most people, except perhaps those on the government side, that this bill is a blunt instrument to achieve political gains. As is so often the case when politics is the primary motivation, bad law is created, and thankfully we now have an opportunity to correct these flaws. I encourage all parties to support these amendments and to make this legislation live up to its name, the accountability act.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not know that. It gives me a sense of false power, perhaps, but I will keep to the time my whip has given me and remind myself of when I need to wrap up.

I was a member of the Bill C-2 legislative committee.

First, I would like to thank the committee's Liberal members, namely our leader on the committee, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, and the hon. members for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and York West. They worked very hard together, along with the leaders of the other parties, including the members for Nepean—Carleton and Winnipeg South.

I would like to add a special word in memory of the hon. member for Repentigny, who died recently.

We worked together when we could and voiced our opinions with much passion. In many cases, I recall the member for Nepean—Carleton, with exceeding passion in language, which we all remember well.

According to the hon. President of the Treasury Board, this was a project to end the role of big money in politics. How farcical. A year ago, the Conservative Party was campaigning under the slogan, “Stand up for Canada”. Today, 10 months later, its true slogan appears to be, “stand up for Conservative friends only”.

Once again, this Conservative minority government—and I emphasize the word “minority”—is trying to use the House of Commons for partisan purposes. Once again, Conservative partisanship has prevailed over the common good and the interests of all Canadians.

Today we clearly see why the minority government wanted to rush the bill through the House, the committee, then on to the Senate and through its committee. The Conservatives thought no one would see how partisan and biased it actually is in certain respects. The more time we spend on the bill, the more flaws and loopholes we find. That is why there was such a dépêche, quite a rush to get the bill out from the spotlight and the microscope of the committees, which did good work, and to the final passage of the bill in the House.

I see it, therefore, as quite ironic in that the Conservatives' campaigned on the promise of cleaning up government and to play by the rules and how today they are trying to tweak the law to sneak in some self-serving loopholes on political donations.

All this after an Elections Canada investigation targeted the Conservative Party, following a statement by the President of the Treasury Board to the effect that his party had forgotten to declare costs of some $2 million relating to its March 2005 convention.

In the process of the hearings, the President of the Treasury Board admitted, particularly in the case at the Senate level, that the Conservatives forgot to declare convention fees as political donations for their convention of March 2005. They had an opinion, which was almost, in this post-football weekend, an audible from the line, the quarterback at the Bill C-2 legislative committee, a representative of the Conservative Party at that point, merely suggested that the Conservatives did not think that convention fees were donations. That has since been ruled completely out of order and improper by Elections Canada officials and by every party in the House except the Conservatives.

Now we will see, as the theme of the response to the speech by the President of the Treasury Board, that it was really all about cover-up and legitimizing something that is quite possibly illegal. Almost $2 million is no small change. The Conservative minority talks about tightening Canadian laws and yet it cannot even follow the existing laws when it comes to political donations.

As I say, I am not the only one saying this. The people of Canada should know that the Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, repudiated the Conservatives' excuses and ruled that the party violated the rules.

Other complaints have been made against the Conservative Party. The Conservatives are attempting to fix their illegalities with certain portions of this law. Today, with Bill C-2, the minority government is trying to cover up its past mistakes and clean up its mess. The very fact that it is trying to change the rules, in extremis, at the last possible minute, clearly is an admission of guilt.

In addition to the convention attendance fees, les frais d'inscription pour les congrès de partis politiques, the fees paid by every party member attending a convention, in addition to the colouring of those as non-political donations, erroneously and quite possibly illegally, the Conservative Party had the temerity and gall in practice to allow corporate observers.

By way of footnote, we must remember that Bill C-24, the very fine Liberal bill brought in under the Chrétien government, made it law that corporate and union donations would not be acceptable. However, the Conservative Party has charged to this date $1,000 for corporate observer fees which were not reported as political donations.

After 70 meetings of the Bill C-2 legislative committee and following the Senate committee, I now understand what the President of the Treasury Board meant when he said that he wanted to take the big money out of politics. He meant all the big contributions that were made off the radar screen, not under the Canada Elections Act, not reportable and elicited by a Senate hearing in the spring of the year by the committee of which the President of the Treasury Board was a member.

These amounts, totalling probably more than $2 million, were corporate donations that the President of the Treasury Board and the Conservative Party wanted out of politics. They did not want them reported. Unfortunately, hijacking the House agenda to pass partisan legislation is becoming a full time hobby for the minority Conservative government.

Time and again the President of the Treasury Board stated that he wanted to reduce the influence of big money and make the political process more open.

He said it again on May 4, when he testified before the committee that was reviewing Bill C-2. Even his boss, thePrime Minister, said he wanted t o “put an end to the influence of money” in the Canadian government.

We have it at both levels. We have the President of the Treasury Board, who is sometimes given to bombast, and we can understand his enthusiasm, but on the other side we have the cold eye of the Prime Minister on this very subject saying that he wants to finish the role of big money in politics. Now we see what they meant, which is that the corporate observer status fees and the registration fees for conventions as being out of politics and not reportable. However, we did not see it at the time.

Unfortunately, this government is unable to move from talk to action. On the one hand, it boasts about being a champion for transparency, but on the other hand it finds it normal not to have declared costs of close to $2 million relating to its March 2005 convention. Today, the Conservatives want to use Bill C-2 to correct their own mistakes of the past.

Accountability, however, is not a bendable concept that can be adjusted to fit partisan objectives and past illegalities. Contrary to what the Conservatives may think, the Liberals believe accountability should apply to all parties all the time, not only when it is convenient to do so or in their case, when they get caught.

A review of Bill C-2 is necessary because there is more than just the passing illegality and cover up, Watergate-like as it is, by the government with respect to political donations.

There were some accomplishments at the legislative committee with respect to making deputy ministers more accountable to Parliament. This is a good thing, with a tighter lobbyist regime. At first the Conservatives did not want people who were past workers for them in opposition to be able to ratchet up the ladder of influence when the government changed, but there was much debate on that.

There was some discussion of the access to information program and Access to Information Act pertaining to some of the agencies, boards and commissions which it can be argued is good and bad depending on the commission, agency and board. Time does not permit, unlimited as it is, for me to get into all of the agencies, boards and commissions involved.

It bears saying there were also some Liberal accomplishments. The Liberal members, at committee, following on the advice of the legal counsel to this Parliament protected an 1868 constitutional privilege which in their haste the Conservatives tried to roughshod through the House. The Liberal opposition members removed the aspect of the secret ballot and most importantly, despite the words of the minority government, saved aboriginal first nations communities from the overreach of audit principles to be imposed by the government.

However, there were some significant missed opportunities in not properly debating, in the haste that was the aura of both committees frankly, many amendments that were brought forward by all parties with respect to some very key elements which might have made the bill stronger. There was a proposal to eliminate donations from people under 18 years of age. This was ironically proposed and was ironically defeated by the Conservative majority on the committee with the help of the New Democratic Party.

It might also be said that in the haste to put the Bill C-2 legislative committee together there were no opinions from constitutional scholars. There was neither the time nor the inclination of the leading constitutional scholars to give evidence at those committees. One wonders if we had the sage advice, for instance, of Donald Savoie and his thoughts regarding the freeze in public sector and lobbying industries with respect to how government should work, how much different a bill we might have.

Last year the Conservatives campaigned on six key words. We often think they only had five principles, but they are much more imaginative than we give them credit for. They actually used six words in their platform. They used: accountability, opportunity, security, family, community and unity, and those are good words. Now let us take a minute to analyze what the government has done since it came into power.

On the same day the Conservatives announced over $13 billion in surplus, thanks to good Liberal management, they cut funding to some of the most important community programs in the country, including: literacy, aboriginal programs, minority groups support and women's equality issues. This is their vision for community presumably from their election campaign.

They cut many youth programs that aimed at promoting exchanges between young Canadians of different regions such as the summer work student exchange program.

Furthermore, the Prime Minister publicly accused many Liberals of being anti-Israel. This is presumably their vision of promoting unity, a further campaign promise.

Conservatives decided in favour of sending a $100 monthly cheque per child to Canadian families, a sum not good enough to pay for quality day care services and child care services, especially when this measure is taxable, while creating no new child care spaces whatsoever. This must be their concept of family as enunciated in their campaign strategy.

As for security, another key word, the Conservative minority government decided to bring forward a very American “three strikes, you're out” law with Bill C-27. The concept of innocence until proven guilty is out the door. This must be the Conservative vision of justice.

Then there is the theme of accountability which is dealt by this bill. In light of what the Conservatives are proposing to do with Bill C-2, it is clear they believe that accountability should mostly be a tool to help clean their own past mistakes, especially the $2 million in convention registration fees that have not been disclosed, that are the subject of complaints officially filed with Elections Canada, and the untotalled amounts of corporate observer fees given by corporations who were, by Bill C-24, outside the scope and allowability of political contributions before this act.

We have large sums of money that have not been accounted for, so how is it that this government can stand on this bill with respect to political contributions and say that it is truly an accountability act? It cannot.

Finally, the last word in the Conservative's campaign was opportunity. Once again, what the Conservative minority government is trying to do with Bill C-2 is to create a partisan loophole, weakening the access to information laws, and watering down the federal accountability act. Opportunity is probably the word that currently best describes the government's principles and modus operandi. More specifically, it is highly opportunistic and partisan.

Today the government should truly stand up for Canada as it promised to do. It promised to adopt the recommendation of the Information Commissioner's report on access to information. It has already had two chances and yet it continues to break this promise. If the government truly wants more transparency and more accountability, it needs to leave partisanship behind and support these amendments. This is what true accountability is all about.

It is important to underline that we have supported in many instances this bill and its thrust, but it is important to underline that the concept of the bill is nothing new.

Bill C-24, as the hon. President of the Treasury Board has already said, was a very good step. It was a Chrétien government step with respect to political financing and transparency. Would that the Conservative government in its most recent clandestine fundraising activities and would that it would follow its own words of the President of the Treasury Board in the House today and be more accountable. Sadly, it is not going to be. It is going to wait until it is dragged, talk about foot-dragging, before the courts and found to have been part of illegal contribution schemes as indicated by Mr. Kingsley.

In the spirit with which the Liberal government brought in Bill C-24 and with which it promised to implement the recommendations of Justice Gomery's report, we moved forward with the deliberations on Bill C-2 and are happy in the further vein to propose these amendments. I move:

That the motion be amended

A. by

1. Deleting from the paragraph commencing with the words “Disagrees with” the following: 25, 34 to 54 (a) to (d), 55(e)(ii) to (viii), 56 to 62, 65, 94

2. Inserting in the paragraph commencing with the words “Agrees with”, immediately after the number “158”, the following: “and 25, 34 to 54, 55(a) to (d), 55(e)(ii) to (viii), 56 to 62, 65 and 94”

3. Deleting the paragraph commencing with the words “Amendments 25”

B. by

1. Deleting from the paragraph commencing with the words “Disagrees with” the following: 121, 123

2. Inserting in the paragraph commencing with the words “Agrees with”, immediately after the number “158”, the following: “and 121 and 123”

3. Deleting from the paragraph commencing with the words “Amendments 120” the letter “s” is the first word, the numbers 121 and 123 and the words “and by removing the Canadian Wheat Board from the coverage of this Act”

C. by

1. Deleting from the paragraph commencing with the words “Disagrees with” the following: 118, 119

2. Inserting in the paragraph commencing with the words “Agrees with” immediately after the number “158”, the following “and 118 and 119”

3. Deleting the paragraph commencing with the words “Amendment 118” and the paragraph commencing with the words “Amendment 119”

D. by

1. Deleting from the paragraph commencing with the words “Disagrees with” the following: 67

2. Inserting in the paragraph commencing with the words “Agrees with”, immediately after the number “158”, the following: “and 67”

3. Deleting the paragraph commencing with the words “Senate amendment 67”

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, do I not have some time to conclude?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to respond to the Committee’s request to discuss its June 2006 report, Improving the Integrity of the Electoral Process: Recommendations for Legislative Change—the name you have given it—and the government’s recent response to that report.

I am accompanied today by Ms. Diane Davidson, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer and Chief Legal Counsel, and Mr. Rennie Molnar, Senior Director of Operations, Register and Geography.

The first half of my presentation will be in French, and the second half in English, obviously.

In preparing its report, the Committee considered the recommendations for amendments to the Canada Elections Act set out in my 2005 report to the Speaker of the House, Completing the Cycle of Electoral Reforms.

Several of these recommendations were endorsed by the Committee and included in its report, some with enhancements. In turn, in its response the Government agreed with many of the Committee’s recommendations and has introduced legislation—Bill C-31 as you just mentioned, Mr. Chairman—to implement them.

A number of areas have been agreed by Committee or by the Government in its response as warranting further consideration. These include a simpler and fairer broadcasting regime; a general review of the Special Voting Rules; a more precise recommendation for an expanded authority for the Chief Electoral Officer to create mobile polls; the distribution of the annual and final lists of electors to all registered and eligible partiers; the development of a simpler administrative process for securing time extensions for the filing of financial returns, and the right to strike by employees of Elections Canada.

I continue to think that these are issues worth pursuing by us all and I would be pleased to make available to the Committee such resources of my Office as it may require, respecting any work upon which it may embark in these areas, and to participate in your deliberations.

There are a number of matters raised in the Committee report or in the Government response that I would like to comment on further.

The 2002 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Sauvé restored the right of prisoners in federal institutions, penitentiaries, to vote, but the Canada Elections Act does not have a mechanism for them to exercise this right. The Government has rejected the recommendations for the expansion to federal institutions of the existing statutory process for voting in provincial correctional institutions. In the absence of the required amendment of the Canada Elections Act, I propose to continue to adapt the Act with each election—to the extent permitted by law—to provide the needed mechanism.

I would like to add a comment that is not found in the text that was tabled: I would like to know if this Committee has any objections to my actions.

I also urge Parliament to continue to consider this issue.

I will now continue in English.

In its report, the committee rejected the wording of my 2005 recommendation respecting a civil examination and inquiry authority for the financial returns required from political entities, particularly political parties, under the Canada Elections Act. I remain convinced of the need for such an authority in light of the importance of the public disclosure requirements of the act and the significant amount of the public reimbursements paid out to registered parties on the basis of those returns. I am willing, obviously, to look at the wording with you to see what wording you would find acceptable.

Following recommendations initiated by the committee, the government's response has proposed a requirement for electors to produce identification in order to vote.

Provision of ID constitutes a major change in the functioning of the polls. Should Parliament wish to proceed with this initiative, it must be very clear as to what is required. This requirement will be implemented by some 65,000 individual deputy returning officers across the land, whose judgment must be consistent: in Canada there's only one definition of a Canadian.

Before implementing this recommendation, it is important to know exactly which entities would be considered government or agencies of government and how many types of government identification have a person's name, residential address, and photograph, and to know what part of the elector universe has such identification. Furthermore, I would want to hear the views of Parliament before authorizing alternative types of identification. This is particularly important as deputy returning officers at the polls will have no flexibility respecting this identification once it is authorized for an election.

At the conclusion of its recommendations, the committee noted that it was awaiting a report from my office respecting the financing provisions of the Canada Elections Act. The committee indicated that upon its receipt it would address seven specific topics noted in the report in the context of a review of overall finance issues. These topics will include such things as membership fees, tax credits, and tax receipts for pre-election contributions.

In response to that request, I am preparing a report for the assistance of the committee that should be available within the next 30 days. That report will deal expressly with those seven issues. It will not go further into other financing provisions of the Canada Elections Act.

Elections Canada has data respecting the operation of the 2004 political financing regime, which it has provided to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its study of Bill C-2—that relates to the 2005 financial year. If the committee wishes, I will be pleased to make that data available to it.

The data that is available now to Elections Canada does not reflect a normal electoral cycle because of the effect of general elections in each of the three years since the implementation of those initiatives. In other words, that's why I cannot provide you with a report on the full implications and full ramifications of Bill C-24, as it was then known.

I have already provided the committee, under separate cover dated October 5, in a letter that reached you during your committee deliberations on that day, with information respecting the implementation of different systems to assist candidates on polling day to identify electors who have voted. I would be pleased to answer any question the committee may have respecting that information.

I would also like to note that the government response has two recommendations to which it is asking the Chief Electoral Officer to respond. One of them concerns the warning that would be posted in the polls, which would add to the fact that we already post a notice to the effect that one must be a Canadian and one must be 18 years of age before voting. I'm asked to also add that it is against the law—that it is committing a crime—to do otherwise. I intend to start doing that as soon as possible.

The other one concerns providing instructions to electoral officials who are responsible for registration on polling day. We already do that, Mr. Chairman, so if there is anything I'm not understanding about this, I would appreciate further guidance.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my presentation.

Criminal Code

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, for his well-chosen words on Bill C-32. I am pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of my party.

Today, once again, we are going to cause sorrow among our colleagues opposite by explaining in a very rational way, with reasoned arguments, why we oppose the amendments, the bills and the ideas, that the government party brings before us.

Nevertheless, this time, we are going to support Bill C-32. The Minister of Justice will certainly be pleased to see his friends in the Bloc Quebecois once again supporting a government bill, and I shall explain the four primary reasons.

These are the four themes we think are very important, and I quote:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code by

(a) establishing more serious offences for placing, or knowingly permitting to remain in a place, a trap, device or other thing that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to a person;

(b) permitting the use of as much force as is reasonably necessary on board an aircraft to prevent the commission of an offence that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the aircraft or to any person or property in the aircraft;

(c) modifying the provision dealing with the provision of information on oath in relation to weapons;

In a moment I will explain why we are also supporting this amendment. The final theme, which, in my opinion, may be the most important, is this:

(d) creating an exemption to the offence of intercepting private communications in order to protect computer systems.

It amends the Financial Administration Act in order to authorize the federal government to take necessary measures to protect its computer systems.

In 2003-04 electronic communications and transactions are increasingly numerous. Many citizens make transactions over the Internet using their credit cards. Unfortunately, sometimes—too often—someone steals their credit cards by stealing the personal identification numbers. Later, fraud is committed through illegal use of the information networks.

If, through this bill or other legislation, we can correct this situation and give more protection to electronic transactions and transfers made by our citizens, it seems to me that we must, as parliamentarians, encourage such amendments and make as many of them as we need.

On this particular bill and on other bills—I want to emphasize that for my colleagues on the government side—we could draw on a bill recently passed in the United States dealing with unsollicited e-mails.

If I correctly understood the intent of the legislation in the United States, people can add their name to a national register and ask not to receive any promotional material from all major media and big corporations using telemarketers or computers for this purpose.

The big corporations have to consult the national registry every day and to delete the names of all those who do not want to be on the mass mailing lists anymore. According to the latest data that I have, some 50 million Americans have added their names to the national register to avoid receiving all this correspondence trying to sell products all equally miraculous and claiming to make them rich and famous, to educate them and to solve all of their health or financial problems.

I think that it would be perfectly legitimate to look carefully at this aspect in Bill C-32 or in a similar bill that would draw from this American legislation and to see if we can apply it to Canada in order to allow people to regain control over their computer and their personal lives.

When you are quietly sitting at home and the phone rings constantly with someone trying to sell a heat pump, a vacuum cleaner or a wonderful encyclopedia, it is a form of pollution. It disturbs our privacy and infringes on the leisure time we want to spend with our family. In our bills, we should be sensitive to that and try to improve the situation.

I talked about the four reasons for which we support Bill C-32. The main reason is that this bill creates a more serious offence for those who set traps or other devices in places kept or used for the purpose of committing crimes.

Let me explain why we agree with this principle. The offence of placing a trap already exists in section 247 of the Criminal Code. The proposed amendments would replace that section. We want to make it more specific and then add more offences.

Right now, setting or placing a trap with intent to cause death or bodily harm to a person is an offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of five years, wherever the trap or the device is placed. This provision would remain, but with minor changes.

New offences are also being established. First of all, if the trap or the device does cause bodily harm, the term of imprisonment will be 10 years. It will be 5 years for placing a trap, but if it is used and someone is accidentally injured, imprisonment will be for a period of 10 years.

If someone sets a trap in a place kept or used for the purpose of committing a crime, the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. If the trap is set in a place kept or used for the purpose of committing a crime and that trap causes bodily harm, it will be possible to extend the term to 15 years.

Finally, if a death is caused by a trap, a bear trap or anything of the kind—I will explain that later—the person caught committing the offence of setting the trap or device will be liable to life imprisonment.

This may seem a bit crazy, but I want to explain. This has happened recently in fields in Quebec. My hon. colleague from Joliette talked about people taking over tobacco or other fields belonging to farmers. So as not to get caught cultivating marijuana, members of organized crime rings place bear traps and other traps so that if the farmer gets too close to where the marijuana is being grown, he will get caught in the trap and can get hurt or even die from his injuries.

This is also true when buildings in industrial areas are rented and used to grow illegal plants. Bear traps or other traps are placed to prevent security or police officers from checking, or intruders or others from entering and discovering their stash.

In Quebec, some people have been very seriously injured by this kind of protection used by organized crime rings to protect the proceeds of their crime. It is understandable and legitimate, given the evolution in the use of these kinds of traps, to amend and clarify the scope of section 247 to provide even harsher sentences for those resorting to such abominable tactics to protect the proceeds of their crime.

The Minister of Justice said on Radio-Canada radio last April 13, “Currently, organized crime rings are placing traps in areas used for criminal activities. For example, areas where cannabis is cultivated. The firefighters association had been requesting this for some time”. This is why section 247 needs to be amended.

What happens when there is a fire and firefighters arrive on the scene? They might wind up in a bear trap because they cannot see through the smoke. It is perfectly legitimate to protect the lives of those protecting us and give them the tools they need and a safer environment in which to do their jobs.

I will take advantage of this theme of traps and snares to state that the Bloc Quebecois had asked for certain tools in the antigang legislation to be corrected and changed. Two of these have not yet been acted upon. We feel the bill could have gone further. First of all, with Bill C-24 in the last session, the government refused to criminalize passive membership in a gang. This would have made it possible to fight organized crime more effectively, and that is what we want to do here. Had membership in a gang been recognized as a criminal offence, it would have helped in the battle against organized crime.

The other measure we were calling for was reversal of the burden of proof. In Canadian law it is essential to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused has accumulated wealth by committing a series of specific and identifiable offences. We need only think of the Hell's Angels megatrials. When someone has a job and reports an annual income of $19,000 when filing income tax returns, but is living in a house worth $265,000 with a Jaguar and a Porsche parked out front, I do not know how that person manages his budget, but certainly not like you or I do.

Perhaps we ought to introduce the reverse burden of proof in order to get these people to tell us how to legally manage our affairs so efficiently. But, all joking aside, I think that people who belong to an organized gang ought to be required to show how they amassed their wealth. We would not be the first country to adopt this reversal of the burden of proof for this specific situation. Canada would not be breaking new ground and the world's legal system would not be destroyed.

I would remind hon. members that Australia, Austria, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United Kingdom have changed their legislation for these very specific cases, reversing the burden of proof.

One of the other reasons we support Bill C-32 is its authorization of the use of reasonable force to prevent criminal activity on board an aircraft in flight that could endanger persons or property—indeed could lead to their death.

Under the current Canadian legislation, the use of reasonable force to prevent the commission of an offence is permitted. The same applies on board an aircraft in Canadian airspace. The bill will amend the Criminal Code to explicitly recognize that any person on board an aircraft in flight is justified in using reasonable force if he or she believes that the use of such force is necessary to prevent the commission of an offence which could endanger the safety of the aircraft or its passengers.

The bill will also clarify that this justification also applies on board any Canadian registered aircraft in flight outside Canadian airspace, and not only in Canadian airspace.

The amendment will ensure the full effect of the Tokyo Convention On Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft.

Canada is signatory to many conventions and belongs to many international institutions such as the ICAO and the UN.

Meetings are held regularly in certain countries. For example, the ICAO deals with aviation safety. Countries are asking themselves how they can contribute to the improvement of aviation safety.

As a sovereignist, I have a lot of respect for the sovereignty of states and their right to independence. However, in this era of globalization, there are decisions that cannot be made strictly within our borders, whether on land, on the sea or in the air. There is a constant flow of people, information and money. Financial transfers abound. Therefore, we must sign more and more international conventions, and this is why the sovereignty of states is important.

When we sign an international convention, if our own legislation is inadequate, incomplete or incorrect, we must amend it. In this part of Bill C-32, we are amending the Criminal Code with regard to the use of force on board aircraft. We are doing this to comply with the Tokyo convention. We must also prevent serious crimes like we saw in the United States in 2001, when terrorists hijacked airplanes and used them as weapons against civilian populations.

We consider it essential that passengers and peace officers on aircraft know that they are covered by legislation if ever they feel it necessary to use force to ensure the safety of both those onboard the aircraft and those who could become the victims of the use of this aircraft for terrorist or criminal purposes, as happened in New York City.

I am therefore convinced that the amendment of section 117.04 of the Criminal Code will ensure greater safety for the crew as well as for people who travel by plane either for business or pleasure.

Our third reason for supporting Bill C-32 is the provision on warrants to search for and seize weapons. Section 117.04 of the Criminal Code deals with that. It sets out the procedure for a peace officer to apply for a warrant to seize weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition, explosives, and so on.

In this respect, one only has to think of family violence situations and the restriction put on police officers to apply for a warrant before entering a home when there are weapons on the premises. Here again, we must make the work of those ensuring our safety easier by allowing us to ensure theirs.

To conclude, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, let me stress again the importance of creating an exemption to the offence of intercepting private communications in order to protect computer systems. A growing number of Canadians are using computer systems to transact business and communicate at all levels. These computer activities must be protected.

As I said earlier, we should take advantage of this window of opportunity to go one step further and develop something based, for once, on what the U.S. is doing. They can do good things in the U.S. A national registry of people could be developed in Canada, and we could tell the big companies which spam us to take our name off their list. This way, our quality of life would be improved.

As you can see, the Bloc Quebecois once again considered with all due diligence this bill before us. For these four main reasons, we will support the bill.

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree with the member opposite.

A prime minister gets his mandate from the people when he leads his party to an election, wins a majority and then takes his place. That is why I said that when we get a situation where leaders change while a government is in office, then an election is immediately called. That is why the member for LaSalle—Émard or the member for Hamilton East, should they win the leadership, would be expected to call an election. I do not think that would be in the public interest in that Bill C-24 does not kick in until January 1.

So no, I have to reject the premise of the member opposite.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I rise to defend my Prime Minister. When I say that, you, Mr. Speaker, will know well from your experience in the House that I am one backbench MP who has many times disagreed with my Prime Minister, many times spoken in the House against my leader's legislation, and many times expressed in the most candid way that not always has the government policy been correct, although by and large, obviously, because I am on this side and not on that side, I believe it to be so.

The reason why actually I take some satisfaction in standing here with the motion and defending my Prime Minister is that I believe it is incumbent on a team and the members of the team always to support their leaders, so long as they have confidence in those leaders, and I certainly have confidence in the current Prime Minister.

If I have time I will make allusion to some of his successes in the past, which include reducing the debt by $100 billion, turning back the forces that would split the country apart, the forces of separatism, and most importantly, the position he took on Iraq, which led Canada away from a traditional course and into a new course of independence in foreign affairs that I think will reverberate down through the ages.

It is not easy being a leader. I think one of the characteristics of a good leader is the ability to make decisions knowing full well that from time to time a mistake will be made. It is not easy, sometimes, to make these decisions and be brave. It is easy in hindsight or easy to sit on the side benches or from behind the curtains to second guess the decisions of a leader, but the reality is that to lead is a difficult task. So long as we, the members of the team, have confidence in that leader, then we should be supporting him. I do so now.

Let me address two points that have come up in this debate. One is the question of why the Prime Minister chose to leave in February 2004 rather than at some earlier time. I was there at Chicoutimi about 14 months ago at the national caucus meeting where the Prime Minister announced that he would leave in February 2004. Now, I have watched this person for a very long time and I understand his knowledge of the House, and I have acquired some knowledge of the House myself. You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that February is a very appropriate time because it is budget month and budgets for the government are prepared 11 months in advance.

So in fact, in February the presentation of the budget marks the end of a year of governance. Reading the current Prime Minister's mind, I am sure he would think that February would be an appropriate time to leave office because he would obviously have the satisfaction of leaving government in very good shape, because as we know from the current finance minister's remarks yesterday, it does appear that we are going to continue with a surplus situation. This means that the current Prime Minister is going to leave the financial situation of the country in good state and I think I can say quite confidently that this would be part of his strategy to ensure that his successor, whoever that might be, will have the best ammunition possible to go forward in the next election.

There is a second reason, which I think came up subsequently to his original choice of February, as to why the current Prime Minister would want to stay on until the new year, even though the convention date at which the party will pick a new leader is in mid-November. I refer to Bill C-24, the political financing act, which kicks in on January 1, 2004. This legislation overhauls and reforms much of the political financing mechanisms that are used at the federal level.

In fact, the federal Parliament had fallen well behind many of the provincial legislatures in terms of the transparency and the rules that should apply to political financing of riding associations, political parties and so on and so forth. Obviously not only would the Prime Minister want to see the next election fought under these new rules, the only way he could be certain of that would be to stay in office at least until the new year.

I am not suggesting that his successor would not want to fight an election under these reformed political financing rules, but the reality is that in the debate on Bill C-24 there were a lot of reservations among MPs on this side of the House and on the opposition side.

The reality is that a new leader chosen in mid-November would come under immediate pressure, no doubt about it, to call an election at that time. By staying on until the new year, the current Prime Minister guarantees that his successor does not have to deal with that type of pressure and that his successor can, in an orderly fashion, work toward preparing himself for his new role as the prime minister.

There has also been quite a bit of debate here that in this sort of interregnum period we are in right now government legislation and government operations are stalled. I think that we on this side of the House have to be candid and admit that this is indeed, to some degree, the case. Some legislation has been stalled. We are not advancing forward as quickly as we should on some bills. I particularly refer to Bill C-7, the Indian accountability bill, which is a very important bill. Also, the citizenship bill is stalled as well in committee, and there are other examples like that.

But I do not think that we can lay the blame either on the current Prime Minister or on his possible successor, because what has really happened is that my colleagues on this side are experiencing something they have never experienced before, and that is a leadership race, which always, I am told, because this is my first experience, activates loyalties, because politics and leadership races are very partisan processes. I think that some members on the Liberal side have indeed had trouble understanding where their loyalties should lie while this debate goes on.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the weakness that the opposition is seeing is really a certain amount of confusion among my colleagues. That confusion is reflected sometimes in the lack of attendance at question period and sometimes in the lack of participation in open debate.

I am absolutely confident that after November 15 when the question of party leadership is settled and it is very clear that there will be a change in prime minister in three months, I fully expect my colleagues will have no problem then differentiating between the party leader and the prime minister.

I would expect, Mr. Speaker, that you can look forward to an active Parliament, not a Parliament that is dismissed, not a Parliament that is prorogued, but MPs who are willing on this side to continue to tackle aggressively the issues of the day. I am very confident that it has been simply a questionof a new experience where suddenly members of the Liberal caucus have a sense of divided loyalties, but that shall pass.

Finally, I would just like to reiterate that the Bloc motion makes it very clear that even the Prime Minister's traditional political enemies in terms of separatism acknowledge that this Prime Minister has earned the right to go when he chooses. I think the NDP is correct in supporting this side, which will most assuredly defeat this motion.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm something that the minister just said in response to the question from a Bloc member. It is very unusual for me to agree with the minister on something, but he was actually giving a factual account of what happened when he said that it was the Canadian Alliance which began to push this idea as far back as the summer of last year.

In fact, I had lunch with the Chief Electoral Officer, which I think was in the early fall of last year, and discussed the idea of bringing certainty to this process. The Chief Electoral Officer was first aware a year ago that there was a party in the House that was interested in bringing certainty to the actual implementation date of the new boundaries.

Mr. Kingsley told me at the time that he felt that he could comfortably, with a little stress, get it in place for April 1 as a potential date. It was on that basis that I approached the minister before the end of the session last year to talk about the possibility of bringing this date forward.

The logic did not escape the minister. It makes sense to everybody because the way the system was set up with the coming into force in August, which would be the normal timetable, we had the potential for an election to either occur in the spring, April-May, with the new Prime Minister when he is selected or it could be in September-October.

There was tremendous uncertainty because the riding associations of the parties would have to prepare for two different scenarios at short notice. On top of all that were the complications introduced by Bill C-24, which was suddenly requiring the registration of riding associations or electoral district associations, as they would be known after January 1.

We were faced with an administrative nightmare, not only getting used to the idea of having to fill out paperwork and all the reporting that goes along with Bill C-24, but we would have to do it twice. We would have to do it once on January 1, 2004, in case the election was called under the old boundaries. Then, immediately afterward, during the summer recess everybody would have to re-register under the new boundaries with a whole new set of paperwork and all of the stress that goes with that if an election had not yet been called.

Another motive for us in the west, of course, was that we were getting two new seats in Alberta and two in British Columbia. The process itself is extremely slow. It takes a decade to even get to the point where we get the two seats we were entitled to 10 years ago. We are already entitled to at least three more seats and it is going to take us another decade to get those. We were anxious to ensure that at the time of the next election we would see those additional seats in the west that at least go partway in recognizing the growth in that part of the country.

That is a bit more background for the member. There was a push from this party to obtain that certainty. I am sure that if he was to check with the administrations of any of the other parties in the House, other than the Bloc, they are all behind this initiative. In fact, the party people spoke behind the scenes and all agreed it was a good idea to get some certainty into this process.

Associated with that, though, I would like to inject the comment that it only becomes necessary to do this because of the government's focus on elections every two and a half or three years. We have an electoral cycle that should ideally be at least four years, with the potential to be as long as five years, and now we have elections coming every three to three and a half years. Right now the House is fixated on the suggestion that there may be an election coming up in the spring of next year when what we really should be doing is focusing on the affairs of the country, the things that really matter to the people of Canada.

For example, people want to see an end to the wasteful gun registry. They would like to see the sex offender registry backdated to take into account people who are already in prison. They would like to see the problems fixed with the refugee and deportation processes because they are in disarray. They would like to see an end to the race based fisheries in British Columbia in accordance with the court ruling that came out there last month that criticized the government for its race based policy for fisheries.

All these major issues need to be addressed. Instead of that we are focusing the time of the House on issues that are important to political parties because of the government's irrational approach to elections. It is throwing the whole country into disarray.

It is almost certain that we will prorogue before November 16. For people who may be watching and who do not understand, the term prorogation means that the Prime Minister simply chooses to close the place down without calling an election until it suits him or his successor to open the place up again with a Speech from the Throne and then perhaps an election almost immediately. What a terrible waste of resources and time that this place could be closed down for six months. However some of my constituents say that is pretty good. When we are not sitting, we are not doing any damage, and they think that is not a bad idea.

In summary, because we do not particularly want to hold up the bill, we would like to see the certainty that comes with it.

I will just round off by saying I hope the Bloc does not hold this up too much. It is unnecessary to consume the time of the House arguing about the bill. It is something we need to do so we have certainty. I hope the Bloc will rethink its strategy of trying to hold this up endlessly. It is not really necessary, and the Bloc knows the government will only move closure on it anyway. Let us get on with the job and get the bill passed.

Income Tax Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Lethbridge who has brought forward this private member's bill, Bill C-325, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction for volunteer emergency service).

For my good friend, my colleague from Lethbridge, whose riding encompasses a lot of rural areas, this is extremely important. Volunteers are extremely important in rural areas as they man emergency services and are providing the quality of life and that valuable service which otherwise would be extremely costly for Canadian taxpayers. These individuals are volunteers in our rural communities who are manning emergency services. My colleague and everybody who lives in rural Canada recognize the importance of these individuals to their well-being and safety.

My colleague introduced Bill C-325 because, first, he feels there is a need to recognize these people and he actually wants to recognize the importance of the volunteer men and women in emergency services and our dependency on their services. Second, he wants to attract and retain volunteers in a time in which they are increasingly difficult to recruit. Third, he wants to compensate these courageous individuals for their efforts in providing a safe environment for people in rural Canada.

Let us talk about these three points in detail. Let us talk about the importance of volunteer men and women in emergency services. As I said in my earlier remarks, emergency services are very costly services to provide in small rural communities. These individuals who have dedicated their time and training and who work in emergency services, which we all know adds an element of danger to their lives as well, are unsung heroes in their communities.

It is time for us to recognize them. It is time for us to stop, look and see what they are doing. Volunteerism is a very important factor in Canada. This afternoon, in an S.O. 31, I also will speak about volunteers in Canada. Canada is considered the number one country in the world because of volunteers. Volunteers span the whole country from east to west; every community has its volunteers. It is very important that we as public policy makers recognize that those who volunteer their time for the betterment of others should receive recognition and our thanks. We recognize their contributions and this is a very small way of recognizing their contributions.

All we are asking is that the workers be allowed to deduct $3,000 from their taxable incomes from any source. It would help them in many aspects. It would help them in regard to recognition. It would be a small token of appreciation from Canada. It would be a little extra money for their services so that they would feel important, because they are important, and they would recognize that we have not forgotten them.

It is important for us to recognize our volunteers. Volunteerism is the essence of Canadian society. It is the stronghold and foundation of our society. It is what brings us the quality of life such that we are recognized around the globe as the number one country in the world.

In these difficult times we must also look at retaining volunteers. There are pressures of time at their work and for their children. All these things put extra pressure on people, who find that they now have less free time on their hands in which to volunteer.

Therefore, the first thing they will drop is volunteerism, because at the end of the day nobody wants to be burnt out. Those of us who come in daily contact with volunteers know that many of them are already burnt out, but they keep on working for that quality of life.

We must ensure that we do not lose this vital component of our society in Canada, volunteerism, and the best way to do that is to ensure that volunteers feel important, feel that they are part of society and feel recognized. Giving them a tax deduction is an aspect of letting them know that they are a very vital part of the community.

As we have stated, emergency services are considered essential services. Our laws ensure that people in emergency services are always available to provide those very needed services and safety features. So it is with volunteers too. We must make sure that is recognized. We must work to ensure that volunteers are available, because if they are not, then what do we do? Would it mean that these services would be reduced? That is not an acceptable option. Otherwise it would be a very expensive situation for us. A $3,000 tax deduction is not a very big sum of money. It would be a very small token of appreciation for these people.

Third, these are courageous people who have families and other work. They take time off from their work and their families to perform these services as well. They would welcome this reward, which would recognize those who volunteer their time and would make sure that those who live in rural communities or anywhere else have that level of comfort in knowing that emergency services are available in times of difficult situations.

Giving tax benefits is one of the small ways in which we can recognize those who provide services for society. We as politicians have given tax deductions, and generous tax deductions as a matter of fact, to those who contribute to political parties because we recognize the importance of political parties to the democratic system of our country. Hence, we have a system where we recognize quite generously those who donate to political parties. I do not see anything wrong with it. As a matter of fact, developing the system through Bill C-24, which is coming out, where the taxpayer now will foot the bill, is a recognition of the value of democracy in our country.

Here is one of the essential elements, providing volunteers, a vital service, at no cost to the taxpayer. So the recognition of a tax deduction of $3,000 would go a long way. We all know that to get a tax deduction based on one's income, it starts from 18% and goes up. It is not a very generous amount that would cost the Government of Canada a lot of money. The alternative is more expensive.

Therefore, I do not see why we would have difficulty in agreeing to the bill. It is not a big sum of money. It is not going to impact the finance minister's books. As a matter of fact, the government wastes more money on other things like the HRDC boondoggle and the gun registry. They have spent more money wasting it on those things, so why can we not recognize the people who really count, who make our country number one, with this small token of appreciation?

It is my pleasure to support my colleague's bill recognizing these individuals.

Supply

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

This has nothing to do with another chamber that is supposed to represent regions. Whether it does adequately is a debate for another time. We are not talking about that. We are talking about the House of Commons of Canada, not another institution. There is no parallel with that in any other country in the world.

The same applies in Quebec. Does a person in Hull want to be represented by someone from Chicoutimi? To put the point much better, does the person from Chicoutimi want to be represented by someone from Montreal who may have never even seen that community? That is the automatic result of a system like this.

The other issue is when we meet constituents, as we often do. When my constituent, Mr. René Berthiaume, introduces me to a relative or a friend he says “Hi, I want you to meet my MP” and he says my name. Regardless of the quantity, whether it is 20%, 30% or 50% it does not matter. MPs are elected only because they are on a party's list. I do not see the democratic value of that. The hon. member is saying to us that this results in more people participating in the electoral process.

This morning I had in my mail a book published by Queen's University about reforming parliamentary democracy, edited by Leslie Seidle and David C. Docherty. The report talks about the New Zealand example and how Professor Jonathan Boston did his work on that example.

I will quote from the report. It states:

As Boston cautions, it's too early to dissect all the ramifications of New Zealand's experiment with electoral reform. Certainly the power that was once enjoyed by a single party in power (and the front bench of the governing party) has been dispersed.

Therefore the only thing that has been achieved is that there ceases to be a majority government. It goes on to state, “Yet, according to Boston, the surge in public confidence that was hoped for has yet to materialize”.

Therefore it did not result in increased voter participation. It did not even do that which is advocated by the hon. member. It is not the great panacea that it is supposed to be.

There is something else. During an election, whether in my riding, in the member opposite's or my colleague's riding, people send us to Ottawa to represent them for all sorts of reasons. Some might vote for me, Don Boudria. Some might think that I should be their MP; that is possible. Others vote for the Liberal Party.

I do not know why people voted for me. Did they vote for Don Boudria or for the Liberal Party? Some vote for the Liberal platform, while others vote for the Prime Minister. All I know is that when it is all added up, I am here in the House of Commons, as is the member opposite and everyone else here. All the votes for all these reasons are all added up.

In his proposal for proportional representation, the hon. member claims—and that is where he is mistaken, in my view—that all the votes for people who are not elected belong to the political party, that no one wanted to vote for the candidate, the platform or the leader and that all these people voted only for the party, at the expense of all other considerations. There is nothing to prove this.

If this is true, it is an insult to the members in this House. Does this mean that each and every one of us was elected based solely on the political party we represented in our ridings and for no other reason? Not a chance.

That is what we are being told. We are being told that all the residual votes are added to a list proportionate to the number of votes per party, and not proportionate to the popularity of the leaders, candidates or anything other than, of course, the parties. These votes belong, therefore, to the parties.

At this level, our constituents sometimes ask a few of us, “How come enough of you did not vote, independently of your colleagues on this bill or whatever, the way we expected you to?” There are all kinds of reasons why this can happen, such as the party platform or because of being a minister, and so on.

Whatever the case may be, these are the kinds of comments we hear from our constituents. The day we no longer have any constituents, how are we to vote against our party, should we decide to do so? What would automatically happen to us, the next time, on that list? Would we be 194th on the list the next time? This is inevitable.

Then the hon. member said that there are only two or three countries in the world, which he named, with a system similar to ours. This is nonsense.

In fact, France had a system based on proportional representation, and it got rid of it. Why? Because people could no longer relate to the members they had elected. France got rid of this system and now elects members to represent ridings. Yes, it is true that there is perhaps a second ballot. However, members are still elected to represent ridings, and not by proportional representation, in France's national assembly. I go two or three times a year, and I am well aware that France has no such system, although it once did.

Australia was mentioned as an example. Once again, this is not true. In Australia's Parliament, or the House of Representatives as it is officially called, members represent ridings only. There may be two ballots, but that is an entirely different debate; it is not proportional representation. Members represent constituents. They do not represent a territory that is 5,000 km long or anything like that. This is not the case in Australia either.

When the hon. member says that Canada, the U.S. and some other country were the only ones—he said that only two or three had the same system as ours—he was suggesting that the others had a proportional representation system.

That cannot even be said of Australia. We travelled to that country. The House leader for his party, who is sitting barely a metre away from him, was there with me to visit Australia's House of Representatives. Of course, Australian senators each represent a region, a state. They are elected based on the size of their states. But that is another debate. We are talking about the other house.

As for the members of the House of Representatives, they represent an electoral division and nothing else. To claim in this House, as the member did earlier, that it is any other way does not reflect the reality.

Some may say that the debate is worthwhile. The hon. member does have the right to bring any issue before the House for debate so that it can be discussed further. That is legitimate, if he thinks this is something that is viable.

I disagree. I think that the system we have is a good one and that it is worth keeping. We can improve our current system in a variety of ways. For instance, in our country, we have a bill before us—it is before the parliamentary committee; as a matter of fact, the meeting is about to start—to ensure that, in the various electoral districts of this country, the redistribution is effected in as near a future as possible. This way, the right of the people to representation by population will be recognized. We want to expedite the process, to change and improve it so that, as Canadians, as citizens of this country, we are better represented in the House of Commons. We want to make that process better. I even made that suggestion in this House a few days ago. But that is another debate.

If the hon. member wishes to talk about creating a system for the other place, let him go ahead. He said something like this, “Listen, as for the proportional system that exists in several countries, with respect to the upper house, we want to close it and include in this house the supplementary parliamentarians who would be elected by the proportional system”. In fact, what he is suggesting, if I understand the system he is proposing today, is that we have senators sitting in the House of Commons. A few moments ago, he gave a reply along those lines to the hon. member for Mississauga South.

These are some examples showing why I think the system he is proposing is not any better. It is not an improvement for our country. Whatever the outcome, proposing a national referendum on the issue in less than a year, when the debate has barely begun, and no evidence has been presented for his contentions, is clearly premature. In my opinion, we should not even think about going down the road to proportional representation. In any case, work is currently being done on reports that will be published later.

There are all kinds of other reforms that could be undertaken. We have implemented some together. As for improving the democratic process, Bill C-24, which we passed recently, proposed one improvement. That was to reduce dependence on large corporations and large unions and have individuals become more involved in the democratic process. That is one way to modernize Canada's Parliament, and this government did it. I must say that some hon. members opposite also voted in favour of these measures, and I thank them.

Bill C-49 proposes electoral redistribution so that we can benefit from what the commissions told us. That is one way to make improvements, and there are others.

But throwing it all out, to replace it with a proportional or semi-proportional hybrid system, or some other, is really going too fast. In any case, we are certainly not prepared to hold a referendum on this within a year or less.

Parliament of Canada Act

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents have long desired ethics and honesty in government and I think I have been able to give it to them through my leadership by example with honest representation as an opposition MP. However the government certainly has not set a good example.

I am motivated by the hope of most Canadians that some day Canada will have an ethical political culture. Some day I hope that any parliamentarian who is tempted to behave wrongly will be quickly found out and denounced. That illusive hope is the backdrop to the bill before us today.

Historically, both the Liberal and Conservative governments of the past have been too easily tempted to break or bend the rules for what they thought was in their political interest or to their advantage. The long term record is that Canadians have been inadequately served by ethically challenged governments. In contrast to what the Canadian Alliance has emphasized, local accountability and grassroots democracy, the Liberals: greased palm bureaucracy.

The recent revelations in the media of the dark inner workings of the Liberal Party are just the latest manifestation of its ethical deficit. The Liberals approach to the public service integrity office for whistleblowing is similar to the way they handled the ethics counsellor position. The promise had been made to create an ethics commissioner reporting directly to Parliament. The Prime Minister opted instead for a counsellor who reports directly to him, an act in itself that was not ethical. It took a series of scandals and ongoing pressure from our party to get some movement on that policy.

The way the current inadequate position operates, the ethics counsellor seems to go out of his way to try and interpret the rules as liberally, pardon the pun, as he possibly can. This is not any real surprise but is a continuation of the marginal usefulness of the ethics counsellor function under the current set up.

Patronage and special favour have been the boastful stock practices of every federal and provincial party that has ever taken office and, even to a very small degree, in regimes of such sanitary former premiers as W.A.C. Bennett of B.C. and E.C. Manning of Alberta.

Rule bending is considered more a Liberal trait or sin because such rewards for the faithful are very predictably given and could be counted upon without shame from Liberal governments. Mulroney rightly said to Turner in the 1993 TV election debate that he had an option not to deliver the long list of Liberal favours. Sadly, it did not take the new incoming Prime Minister long to stoop to the very same thing.

Parliamentary reformers always talk about open competition for posts with hiring choices made on merit, not on partisan standing, but the pleas have not diminished the practice, even for diplomatic posts where a neutral record might seem advantageous. We remember Mr. Gagliano.

The old line parties simply cannot seem to do without such rewards. Why should they? Patronage and favouritism have their roots in human nature and they have been evident in the governance of society since recorded history. It is so human to help one's relatives, friends and fellows in a common cause, and the practice is not confined to partisan politics.

No one has been making a big deal of it, but the Treasury Board policy, entitled “Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service”, is supposed to be in the hands of every federal official, great and small. Treasury Board rules and guidelines fill the shelves but seem to be routinely ignored by the government.

Repeatedly over the years, acquaintances within the bureaucracy have told me that there is patronage in filling jobs and awarding promotions in the public service as the Prime Minister's Office sets the tone at the behest of ministers and insider MPs.

When participating in any decision making related to a staffing process, public servants should ensure that they do not grant preferential treatment or assistance to family or friends. When making decisions that will result in a financial reward to an external party, public servants should not grant preferential treatment or assistance to insiders or entities who were not selected purely on objective merit. The problem of awarding purchasing contracts only on merit in an ethical manner remains a big stumbling block for the government.

The scale of public service appointments and promotions runs into the tens of thousands each year, whereas the so-called political posts monitored by the ethics counsellor only numbered several thousand. Therefore we need a culture change for the whole public service as well as a new tone in the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister is leaving so, true to form, last week or so some 50 plum appointments were made. In this transition phase we will see a lot of this Liberal unfairness for some of the most cherished appointments, including, of course, the usual dumping ground of the Senate.

Liberal MPs, bagmen, and Prime Minister cronies salivate at the prospect of a Senate place where the pace is easy and without electoral risk until the age of 75. Despite this, there are some good people there who do good things, but it is how one gets there that is the big problem.

Long ago I lost my surprise at encountering MPs and party apparatchiks on Parliament Hill who dreamed of quietly pressing for a place in the red chamber. Most aspirants rank it ahead of all other gifts at the Prime Minister's command. Since Confederation, the Senate bonanza has been a prime lure into partisan activity, encouraging continuous party loyalty.

Our party, and certainly most of the folk in my constituency, abhor political partisan and bureaucratic patronage. Unfortunately, people, being people will be tempted. The real power in federal Ottawa is now wielded by a presidential kind of Prime Minister and a Supreme Court that, since the recent charter's advent, has superceded Parliament as the highest court in the land.

In view of this wrong trend, I hope Canadians will vote in the next election as much on the ethics question as much as other things. When we talk about ethics in a public office holder context, it is more than just appearing to be honest. The object of a code is to enhance public confidence in the integrity of public office holders and the decision making process of government. The rules should encourage experienced and competent persons to seek public office. The rules should facilitate interchange between the private and public sector, and establish clarity respecting conflict of interest for post-employment practices, applicable to all public office holders. The rules should minimize the possibility of conflicts arising between private interests and public duties of public office holders, and provide for the resolution of conflicts for the public interest should they arise.

Every public office holder should conform to the following principles. Public office holders should act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced.

Public office holders have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law. Public office holders, in fulfilling their official duties, should make decisions in the public interest with regard to the merits of each case without consideration for advantage to themselves or their political party.

Public office holders should not have private interests, other than those permitted pursuant to the code, that would be affected particularly or significantly by government actions in which they participate. On coming into office, public office holders should arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real or apparent conflicts of interest from arising, but if such a conflict does arise between private interests and official duties, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the Canadian public interest.

Public office holders should not solicit or accept transfers of economic benefit, other than incidental gifts, customary hospitality or other benefits of nominal value, unless the transfer is pursuant to an enforceable contract or property right of the public office-holder.

Public office holders should not step out of their official roles to assist private entities or persons in their dealings with the government where this would result in preferential treatment to any person.

Public office holders should not knowingly take advantage or benefit from information that is obtained in the course of their official duties that is not generally available to the public. It is the so-called insider trading principle.

Public office holders should not directly or indirectly use or allow the use of government property of any kind, including property leased to the government for anything other than officially approved activities.

Finally, public office holders should not act after they leave public office in such a manner as to take improper advantage of their previous office.

We must look at these standards that I have outlined and then examine the Liberal record. The Liberals have all too often talked about ethical rules, but mostly for show. They have not had a deep commitment to transparency of activity that would naturally arise from a belief in self-control and ethical self-governance.

Sadly, it has taken years to get even this somewhat and inadequate bill entitled, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officers).

The Liberals promised back in the 1993 red book. However when we quoted from that book in the form a votable motion, incredibly the Liberals voted in the House against their own published red book policy.

That smiling Liberal fellow who was collecting leadership delegates this past week did that insincere flip back then by voting against the very policy that he wrote. Therefore, how can we trust anything that he may say in the future?

Briefly, the bill claims to amend the Parliament of Canada Act to provide for the appointment of a Senate ethics officer. It also requires the Senate ethics officer to perform the duties and functions assigned by the Senate regarding the conduct of its members. However the bill also amends the act to provide for the appointment of an ethics commissioner for the House of Commons. It provides for this commissioner to perform the duties and functions assigned by the House of Commons regarding the conduct of its members and to administer any ethical principles, rules or obligations established by the Prime Minister for public office holders.

The imperfections are already evident, as it is an independent Parliament as a whole that should establish the rules for self-governance, not the Prime Minister.

Bill C-34 talks about independent ethics commissioner but the term is misleading since the Prime Minister will make the choice and there will only be consultation with the leaders of the parties in the House with a confirming vote in the House.

As far as I can tell, there will be no standing committee examinations or official committee report to the House. Sadly, consultation with the other party leaders does not mandate that the Prime Minister must change his mind if they disagree. The operative word is only “consult”, rather than “obtain approval”.

The confirming vote in the House will undoubtedly be a vote in which all government MPs will be required, by their leader and party membership, to vote in favour of the Prime Minister's choice. The whip will be on.

The Senate ethics officer is appointed for an initial seven year term and is eligible for reappointment for one or more terms of up to seven years each. It is not clear to me if the senators themselves get to nominate, examine in committee and vote on their own House officer. They currently cannot even vote to select their own Speaker of their chamber.

The House of Commons ethics commissioner is appointed for an initial five year term and is eligible for reappointment for one or more terms of up to five years each. The House of Commons ethics commissioner will work under the general direction of a committee of the House of Commons, presumably the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

This commissioner will perform the duties and functions assigned by the House of Commons for governing the conduct of its members when carrying out their duties and functions of the office as members of that House. This means that a separate code will be established and will become part of the standing orders which the commissioner will enforce.

The commissioner's supervision of cabinet ministers will be about the same as it is now. No news there. This is private, confidential advice to them and to the Prime Minister.

However, the new fact that an investigation of a minister can be triggered by a formal complaint by a member of Parliament or senator is positive. The results of such investigations will be made public. Nevertheless, the public report, unfortunately, can be sanitized by removing information.

It is not sufficiently clear that a minister of the Crown, a minister of state or a parliamentary secretary can be held accountable under the same rules as those that apply to a regular member of Parliament. It may be assumed but it is not specifically clear in the bill.

In addition the ethics commissioner or his staff cannot be compelled to be a witness in an ordinary court about evidence that arises in the course of their duties. I support this though that this should serve for greater trust in the relationship when seeking advice from the commissioner.

Our party has had a longstanding blue book policy which states:

We will facilitate the appointment of an independent Ethics Counsellor by the House of Commons. The Ethics Counsellor will report directly to the House of Commons and be given the mandate to investigate, and where applicable, recommend prosecution for conflict-of-interest infractions by a member of Parliament and/or his/her staff.

That is the longstanding position of our party.

It is not clear if this bill meets that standard. Our caucus members always strive for a high standard of ethical conduct by both government and parliamentarians. It is this deluded Liberal version of ethics in this bill which we find difficult to support.

I just find it hard to understand why it has taken so long to get so little from the government, concerning ethics. The Liberals would try, as usual, to characterize us as being against a code of ethics, and we must remind that we object only to a Liberal, diluted interpretation.

We object to an ethics commissioner appointed by and answerable to the Prime Minister who will have jurisdiction over backbench and opposition MPs. That dynamic is an inappropriate blurring of the independence of Parliament from the government. Parliament is not the government. It is the special place where the government comes to obtain permission to tax and spend the people's money and get its legislation passed. The officers of the House of Commons, like for example the Auditor General, are not part of the government.

Certainly a basic flaw to this bill is that the Prime Minister will appoint the ethics commissioner without a meaningful role by rank and file members of Parliament. There is provision for consultation with party leaders but no requirement that the agreement be reached. The Prime Minister does not appoint the Speaker of the House and he should not really be involved with the commissioner's appointment or any of the officers of Parliament.

It brings to mind the flawed basis of how the Auditor General is appointed, as well as the other independent officers of Parliament, like the infamous Liberal insider Radwanski, the pugnacious former privacy commissioner. The independence of all House officers must start at the very beginning concerning how all of them are nominated, examined, confirmed and continue in tenure.

The bill does not apparently change the relationship of ministers with the ethics counsellor. He will administer the prime minister's code and will provide confidential advice to the prime minister and to ministers. If an investigation of a minister is requested by a senator or MP, the ethics counsellor is obliged to investigate but any public report arising from the investigation can be sanitized. The scandals that have plagued the Liberals will not likely be preventable or subject to much exposure under this form of legislation.

Some may say that half a loaf is better than none at all but I hope that the few MPs within the Liberal caucus who have had these kinds of matters on their minds for some time will speak up and support all parliamentarians who want a better bill. Canadians deserve a powerful and fully independent ethics commissioner. It actually may take the Canadian Alliance to deliver upon the red book promise which it copied from our blue book, the ideal that has been sought by parliamentarians for so many years. The country deserves and needs a truly independent ethics commissioner for Parliament.

To conclude, I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor:

Bill C-24, An Act respecting the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other Acts in consequence, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 4 with the view to ensure that:

(a) a standing or “an all party” committee of the House of Commons search for those persons who would be most suitably qualified and fit to hold the office of Ethics Commissioner; and

(b) the said committee recommend to the House of Commons the name of a person to hold such office.

Points of Order

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, the government House leader indicated incorrectly that the members of the New Democratic Party had voted against Bill C-24, the election financing act. In fact, the government House leader will know that all NDP members present last night voted for it, unlike the Liberals across the way of which 10 abstained. I just want to point that out and invite the government House leader to correct the record on this point.

Political Party Financing

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been through this before. The hon. member was not a member of cabinet at the time. He is asking about rules of fundraising in a political party, rules that did not even exist and still do not but will exist when Bill C-24 is in place, and which that member and his friends voted against.

Viking Millennium Celebration

[The Speaker]

I am afraid that question is out of order. It does not relate to the administrative responsibility of the government, despite the debate on Bill C-24 that we are now having. We will move on to the next question.

The hon. member for Roberval.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has not said is that these particular fundraising activities occurred when the hon. member was not a minister of the Crown. The question is out of order. It has nothing to do with the business of government. It has to do with a constituency association and the party across the way does not even want to register party constituency associations. It voted against Bill C-24.

Supply

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will also be following the recommendations made by my colleague and vote against the Canadian Alliance's motion for the reasons she gave. I would add that all of the efforts made in this House are for naught.

The fact is, this government is in transition. No one is making decisions. Yesterday or the day before, the member for LaSalle—Émard arrived in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and said basically what the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has said.

This government has no captain at the helm. The ship is drifting, but I am not referring to one of those that belong to the former Minister of Finance. They are in other countries, in tax havens. While the member for LaSalle—Émard was Minister of Finance, he was vehemently opposed to eliminating tax havens in the West Indies. We know why.

I will be curious to see if the member for LaSalle—Émard will act like a real taxpayer and shoulder his responsibilities when he finally becomes Prime Minister. When you are a taxpayer and you run a corporation, you have to pay taxes. When you do not pay taxes, you are not a good corporate citizen. You are not shouldering your responsibilities. If all Canadians behaved like the member for LaSalle—Émard, what kind of administrative mess would we be in and what would happen to Canada's economy?

I would like to say to the member opposite—who spoke earlier and who made comments about the Parti Quebecois—that it was Yves Séguin, the current finance minister in the Charest government, who clearly proved that the fiscal imbalance exists. Earlier the member mentioned the fact that municipalities come under provincial jurisdiction and that that terribley PQ government, the terrible separatist government, as they put it, had cut funding to municipalities.

That is what is called nation building. It is the way the Liberals behave in order to smother Quebec. It is easy. They cut off the money at the source and the Government of Quebec finds itself with a shortage of funds. It had to make difficult choices. In making these difficult choices, it had to make cuts with respect to municipalities. It also had to make cuts in highway maintenance. The money is in Ottawa.

It is well known that the excise tax was originally introduced to support the creation of Petro Canada, which, as far as I know, has been sold to private investors. I think perhaps 25 or 30% remains in public hands. I do not follow the ups and downs of Petro Canada on the stock market, but there is no longer any reason for the excise tax. About $4.758 billion has been taken for no reason from the taxpayers' pockets. Now, we have to deal with it, because this government specializes in taxes. Since it does not want to eliminate the excise tax, it should take the money and invest it in the provinces. The money does not belong to the federal government.

A short while ago, the parliamentary secretary said that Quebec and the provinces do not treat the municipalities very fairly. Nevertheless, the figures are clear: 117% of the fuel tax is directly invested in highways, and, of the $4.750 billion, $2.5 billion goes to highways. That is a fiscal imbalance.

I smiled when I read the Canadian Alliance motion. Since the Alliance has been here, its members have specialized in saying that there are too many taxes and they should be eliminated. Now, they take one tax and want to turn it into a new one and make it a provincial responsibility. That does not work.

The Canadian Constitution is clear. But the hon. members across the floor are messing around with its interpretation. When it suits the federal government, the Liberals say, “That is a provincial responsibility”. Look how they operate with softwood lumber. Look how they operate with gasoline. When things go badly, they say it is the provinces' fault.

Things are going badly in the provinces because the federal government is not doing its job. Generally, a confederation ought to cooperate, subordinate, coordinate the federations. What we have is not a confederation but a centralist Canadian federation, a product of the dream of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

The people in government, along with the present Prime Minister and the present Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, are suffocating Quebec, taking away its responsibilities. What is happening is that there are difficult choices to be made. Those who are really responsible for the financial chaos in Quebec are the people across the way. Those who are really responsible for the pitiful state of our highways—with which I am familiar, since I live in a very rural riding—are in government.

We have the infrastructure program, clear agreements. But when those clear agreements come here to Ottawa, we are all very well aware of how they get fiddled about with at Economic Development Canada, of all the red tape, of all the delays there are. Who is responsible? Always the Canadian government, which is not doing its job.

There is a surplus and there is fiscal imbalance. The solution is clear. They merely have to hand the money over to us, to the provinces, and we will administer it. When we have the money to which we are entitled, we will be in a position to meet the expectations of the municipalities, which are under provincial jurisdiction. That is clear.

It seems to me that the federal Liberals can no longer lay the blame at the feet of the terrible separatist government, as the parliamentary secretary was just doing. They are no longer in power. Now it is the provincial Liberals, with Yves Séguin as Minister of Finance, he who has been openly critical of the fiscal imbalance. So where can the blame be laid? They will have to talk to each other. I would imagine there would be a certain degree of accommodation between two groups of Liberals.

I am looking forward to seeing the present Minister of Finance tell Yves Séguin, “Dear Yves, I know there is a fiscal imbalance. Now that the minister is no longer a PQ minister, I can acknowledge that there is a fiscal imbalance.” They have no choice. That is the reality.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, however, the problem is that there is no longer anyone in this government making decisions. There is a Prime Minister who is coming to end of his mandate, and a future Prime Minister who says all manner of things all over Canada, but who is often conspicuously absent when there are crucial votes. Take yesterday's vote on Bill C-24 as an example. This cuts very close to the partisan heart of the member for LaSalle—Émard, and he was not there. So what are we to do?

This government is in transition, and is having trouble governing. As I was saying, the Liberal government's ship is drifting, unlike the ships of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard. Currently, the Liberal ship has no rudder. There is no one at the helm and it is listing. The Liberal government's ship must be prevented from entering the St. Lawrence or it could run aground on the north or south shore. It would not even be able to find the channel. The channel is the central canal where there is sure sailing. But this is not the case.

I hope that, over the next few months, once we have a real Prime Minister, a real Minister of Finance and a real cabinet, they will acknowledge that there is a fiscal imbalance and give the provinces the money they need to meet the real expectations of the municipalities.

Canada Elections Act

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

It is repugnant, and as the House leader considers those remarks I think he owes an apology to people in the trade union movement in this country.

I listened to the member for Elk Island a couple of days ago on this subject in debate on the bill. He was expressing his distaste for the fact that as a former member of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees he had no choice in that some of his dues went to the New Democratic Party of Alberta. He was insisting how unfair that was. Let me say to that member of Parliament that it was a decision made by the local union of AUPE at the institution at which he apparently worked in those days.

The obverse of that is to suggest that a board of directors at Bombardier, for example, is giving $100,000 of shareholders' money to the political party of its choice. Does he really think there is more democracy in that situation than in a trade union local deciding by a democratic vote of its members at a general meeting which political party it chooses to support? I think the member for Elk Island needs to reflect on that matter.

On the matter of public funding for elections and between elections, which is an important aspect of the bill, if we take corporate and union money away from parties, as Bill C-24 would do, then some of that money, we believe, has to be replaced. For the last almost 30 years, individuals have received a tax deduction when they donate to political parties but Bill C-24 would also provide for an annual public grant for parties based on each vote they received in the previous general election.

The previous proposal, up until last weekend, provided for an annual public allotment to parties of $1.50 per vote, per year, for every vote they received in the previous general election. Based on the election in November 2000, the Liberals would have received $7.8 million annually, the Canadian Alliance $4.9 million, the Progressive Conservatives $2.4 million, the Bloc Québécois $2.1 million, and the New Democratic Party $1.6 million.

We were assured that this had been looked at by the government, that it was revenue neutral and no party would suffer as a result of this $1.50 per vote, per year, to replace moneys lost from corporations and trade unions. Now suddenly it has come back in at $1.75. We have difficulty with that. We felt that if $1.50 was good enough and revenue neutral in March when the bill was introduced, then surely it is good enough in June. We do not understand why the price of democracy has suddenly risen by 25¢, but that is what we will be voting on today at third reading.

We think it occurred because various Liberals rebelled. They sent their president to testify before the committee on procedure and House affairs, which was looking at this issue. They said it was not enough and they needed more money. As a result this amendment was pushed through and introduced early this week. We think the Liberals are used to relying on a rich corporate diet and seem concerned about being weaned away from it in any way. They apparently fear perhaps going out and having to go door to door to raise money from people on the doorstep and elsewhere. We believe that a public contribution of $1.50 per vote to each political party is a fair and reasonable replacement for the loss of corporate and political donations.

As an aside, I note that the Canadian Alliance opposes this modest amount of money going toward political parties. I think it had an amendment to reduce the 43¢ roughly per quarter that would go to each party to 1¢. I just do not understand it. These folks stand up every day and grill the government about the latest scandal of Groupaction in accepting government money on one hand and getting a contract on the other. Perhaps the Canadian Alliance is concerned that it will actually have to get out and do some of its own research as a result of this cleaning up of the Canada Elections Act and the introducing of public money, which will have to be transparent at the local level and at the national level on a regular basis. But we can be sure that in any event, like the gold plated pension plan, the Canadian Alliance will vote against it but certainly take the money. On the matter of pensions, we happen to believe that people are fully entitled to pensions but the hypocrisy of the Alliance members on that issue, and again on this issue, is breathtaking.

I have only a couple of minutes left, and we are under time allocation, but we are saddened that we are unable to deal with current trust funds. I know that come January 1 everything will be transparent under this bill and trust funds will no longer be able to exist. We felt there should have been a way to have some reporting from the relatively few members of the House, as I understand it, who are in the business of trust funds, some reporting of trust fund money flowing in. We wanted to reinstate clause 71 on that. We debated it at report stage yesterday and we were ultimately unsuccessful in persuading the government.

On third parties, we all know about the destructive effects that third party money and interventions have had in the United States where groups like the National Rifle Association and others have intervened in a very undemocratic and unaccountable way in the political process. We all know about the soft pacts that have occurred there. Earlier I mentioned the enormous, unbelievable amounts of money that it takes to run for and win political office in the United States. In this country, the National Citizens' Coalition, just as secretive and unaccountable, has made similar interventions.

Bill C-24 does not deal with third party expenditures in any way. The assumption is that third party expenditures are going to be dealt with at the court level and the government is convinced that it is going to win that debate. I am not as confident, but we will have to wait and see. There was no opportunity to deal with that because these are amendments to the election financing act.

Once Bill C-24 comes into effect in January 2004, it will confine political parties to accepting only individual donations. Accordingly, it should follow that judges will find it more difficult to rule against legislation limiting spending by third parties in election campaigns. We hope that is the case but certainly there are no guarantees. I look forward to the first review of Bill C-24, and I hope and expect that by the time the courts will have ruled, the National Citizens' Coalition will have a much reduced role in the Canadian political electoral system.

In conclusion, the New Democratic Party believes that big money should be removed from politics and it largely will be removed from politics. Our party passed just such a resolution at its leadership convention in Toronto five months ago. Canadians are tired of a political system where money has bought influence. They want the government and political parties to clean up their acts, and I fully concur.

The bill is not perfect. We think there are obvious flaws in the bill. We tried to get those flaws dealt with in clause by clause and at other stages, but there is no question that overall this will provide a big improvement over the system as it exists now.

On balance it is a significant step toward getting big money out of politics. It also provides for greater transparency and accountability for our political system. For that reason the New Democratic Party will be supporting Bill C-24.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to heartily thank the hon. member for Roberval, who is the Bloc Quebecois House leader, for having allowed the other parties to have a few minutes to speak on Bill C-24.

In the final moments of this debate I want to say to the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois that I appreciate that he shortened his remarks in order to give the member for Saint John and me an opportunity to speak, because of course the bill is under time allocation.

I am pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act. It is a bill that changes how we finance elections and political parties in Canada.

We as a political party have long called for the removal of big money from politics, so we have supported this legislation in principle throughout. Having said that, we recognize and will be pointing out that we still find there is some unfortunate and glaring errors with it, but on balance we believe it allows for better democracy and certainly greater transparency.

Prior to the clause-by-clause proceedings, when the committee on procedure and House affairs was meeting to discuss this in the spring, we heard from more than 70 witnesses. A number of them came forward and said that on balance this is good, supportable legislation. Many Canadians will have read the remarks of Ralph Nader who said that it is another example of Canada being first and should be quickly emulated in his country, the United States of America. When we see senators running for that institution in the United States, spending $30 million and $31 million to get themselves elected, Americans certainly need to see some urgent reform of their elections act.

The legislation goes a good distance toward getting big money out of politics. There has been a lot of big money in politics over the years. In the last election campaign, campaign 2000, the Liberal Party, which was returned as the government, took in almost $12 million from corporate donations. Sixty per cent of the total that the Liberals raised was from the corporate side. They received almost $700,000 from the chartered banks alone, another $100,000 from Bombardier, almost $100,000 from Canadian National and the list goes on. I would not want to lose sight of the fact that the Canadian Alliance, which claims to be the grassroots party, raised $7 million from corporate Canada in that same election campaign.

The equation is quite simple, especially when a party is returned to the government benches. The companies hand out big money and they expect something in return. They hand a cheque to the Liberal bagman with one hand and expect to receive a lucrative contract almost immediately with the other. The Prime Minister has admitted as much with his ethics package of a year ago. Indeed, the heritage minister, who is seeking to replace the Prime Minister, has said from her perch within cabinet that the ratification of the Kyoto accord was delayed in this country because big money does matter and does talk at the cabinet table.

The Liberal Party has been the party of big business. As I mentioned, big business accounts for 60% of its donations. The situation is somewhat reversed for the New Democratic Party. It is significantly reversed perhaps because we received 60% from individuals. They are modest amounts in the range of $50 or $100 for the most part.

If we look at the financial returns that parties have to post every year, we will see that the New Democratic Party has far more individual donors than any other political party in this country. That will come as a surprise to those who claim that the New Democratic Party is financed only by big labour. We have a long and proud tradition with the labour movement. That is certainly true. When the party was founded in 1961, it was founded on a partnership between the old Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Canadian trade union movement. That has remained and it will continue to remain as a partnership, I am sure, once Bill C-24 takes full effect.

Labour will continue to work with the New Democratic Party and vice versa, but the focus in future I believe will be to encourage union members to become more directly involved in the party and, if they so choose, to make donations on an individual basis.

The New Democratic Party supports getting big money out of politics. Our party convention in January instructed us to pursue that.

The legislation before us today allows individuals to donate $5,000 a year to a party. It was set at $10,000, which was reduced. We would have preferred a more modest amount of $3,000, which corresponds to the limits that are permitted in the province of Quebec and the province of Manitoba, the two other jurisdictions in Canada that have legislation along these lines, which essentially prohibits corporate and trade union donations from going to political parties. We would have preferred $3,000, but certainly reducing it from $10,000 to $5,000 is a step in the right direction and is certainly supportable.

Our concern, however, is that if they so choose, people with deep pockets can donate $5,000 to the Liberal Party and donate another $5,000 to the New Democratic Party or the Alliance or any of the other registered parties. We would have said that this should be an amount in total, an aggregate amount of $5,000, and all in and not spread around. I tend to agree with those who say this is unlikely to happen, but nevertheless it would have been better to close the gate before any chance of the horse getting out of the barn. Overall, this is a good improvement in the Canadian political system, because before this anybody with deep pockets could really have a significant influence on an election campaign and certainly in an individual election campaign.

As I mentioned, there is a prohibition on contributions to political parties from corporations and trade unions or associations, but there is a small exception. This legislation does permit organizations to contribute a maximum of $1,000 annually to the aggregate of candidates, local associations and nomination contestants of a registered party so that all the contributions are combined under the $1,000 limit.

Our first preference would have been that this not be in there at all. We do not think this is required. This is something that was not in the Prime Minister's mind when he floated this bill last fall. I think it is fair to say that some backbench members of his party were concerned, so this came back as an opportunity for trade unions, associations and corporations to still participate, but to a much more limited extent than they have been able to heretofore in the political process.

Our first inclination was to get rid of that altogether. We were not successful. Our second suggestion, then, was to level the playing field. We said that if franchised corporations like Dairy Queen or Tim Hortons, with units owned by different franchisees, if that is the right legal terminology, could each give $1,000 then trade union locals should be able to give $1,000. However, we have been unable to persuade the members opposite of the wisdom and the good sense of having that level playing field. As a result, unions are considered as one unit for the purposes of donations no matter how many locals they may have, but corporate franchises like Tim Hortons or Dairy Queen or car dealerships are each considered as separate units for purposes of political donations and each of them is able to make a separate $1,000 donation.

The effect of all this has been to weight this class of political donation heavily in favour of corporations as opposed to trade unions. We think that will be proven very quickly when we look at this as the procedure and House affairs committee or some other committee to see the ramifications of Bill C-24. This will stick out like a sore thumb.

There are 16,000 locals in total in national and international unions in this country and the vast majority of them, we believe, will be excluded from contributing to and playing a part in the political process. We have put forward amendments on this, as I have indicated, and they have been voted down by members opposite. To add insult to injury, the House leader said in debate yesterday in this chamber that there is a fundamental difference between union locals and corporate franchises when it comes to exercising local control and independent judgment. I think in effect he was saying that local businesses have minds of their own and that local unions are simply sheep that follow the edicts of their national or international offices.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad duty for me to rise today to speak to a piece of legislation that is being imposed on the people of Canada in the dying days of the spring session of the House. This is one of those bills on which we must all agree in principle but in which we find the real devil in the details.

At a previous stage it was my right hon. colleague from Calgary Centre who spoke to this legislation. He argued, and I agree, that had the government truly been interested in the process of reforming our system of political donations, it would have introduced this legislation in a manner that would have better ensured the full consideration of this great Parliament. Instead we have again been rushed in our deliberations.

One of the most significant concerns that I have about this legislation relates to the fact that it would put into place a formula by which the amount of money that a political party would receive would be based upon their results in the last election. As my friend, Mr. Irving Gerstein, has said, that would be the same as saying that we would calculate one's next mortgage based upon the value of one's last house.

This process would give the party of government a clear advantage over all the rest of the parties in the House and in Canada, even if its popularity had fallen significantly since the time of the last election. If the government of Kim Campbell had introduced this legislation prior to the 1993 election, the current Prime Minister would have opposed it vigorously. He would have said that given the place of the parties in the polls at the time, it would have been grossly unfair to award them funding based upon the results of the 1988 election.

There is another matter here that strikes me as being equally unfair. As the legislation currently provides, it will be the tax dollars of the people of Canada that will effectively be used to fund our political parties. In the past, we have said that people had a democratic choice in Canada. If one had wanted to support the Progressive Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the Alliance Party or the Bloc, one had the choice to do so as a free-minded Canadian citizen. Now however, we are saying that the Canadian people will have to donate to every political party through their hard-earned tax dollars, even if they would never have supported four or five of the parties in a million years.

They are saying that the tax dollars of my son, who lives in Calgary, would go to the Bloc, to the Alliance, to the Liberals, to the PC Party, to the NDP. That is not how he feels about this, I can say that. He would pick and choose himself whom he supports. They are saying that Lucien Bouchard's tax dollars would go to the Canadian Alliance. I am sure the Bloc wants that and I am sure he does as well. My tax dollars would go to support the Liberal Party. Mr. Speaker, do you want to ask me if I agree with that? I can tell you right now it does not seem very fair to me.

When did we lose the freedom of choice in our democracy? When did we give that up in Canada? When did we lose the right to support our political party of choice and only our political party of choice?

I know that the government House leader would argue that all of us who received 15% or more of the popular vote in the last election received a certain refund from the government, but that was based upon the results of that election. The money returned was based upon the costs of that election, not of the 1997 election or even the 1957 election. There was a direct relationship between that rebate and the election at hand. This bill offers something completely different.

There is an issue that I have not heard discussed in this debate prior to today. It is the power that the bill gives to the Prime Minister and a select handful of people, the power to eliminate with the stroke of a pen any Liberal association that he wishes. That is not democracy.

There is a leadership convention taking place on the government side at this point in time. We know that if we pass the bill, the Prime Minister can eliminate a lot of the businesses that supported those who are running in the leadership. That is not right.

Section 403.2 allows, on the application of any party leader and two of its officers, the deregistration of one of the party's registered associations by the Chief Electoral Officer. This puts too much power in the hands of party leaders.

I do not believe that this important issue has been significantly considered by the House. We should not be making a decision on this at this time. We should be sitting down and discussing it. I think that if we went across this nation we would find that Canadians are very upset about the bill. Canadians do not believe that this is right. They never thought that in Canada the day would come when legislation such as this would be before the House.

What if the Prime Minister wanted to deregister all of the riding associations organized by the member for LaSalle—Émard? He could do it if we pass the bill. I cannot believe that anyone sitting on either side of the House could agree to this. It could be done and certainly we could conceive of it.

I have to say that the Progressive Conservative Party is very concerned about the bill. We are very concerned about the fact that it takes away from us our rights that we have had in the past for those people who wish to support my party. It takes away the rights of people who feel that some of us do come here to the House of Commons to represent them and our citizens back home. They feel very strongly that they want to support us. I have to say there are many people who do not feel that their tax dollars should be coming here and given to the parties in the House of Commons. That is now how many people see this.

Then there are people out there in the private sector who want to support a party. I am not opposed to the fact that perhaps the Liberal Party gets a whole lot more support than some of the rest of us. That is the system that is out there. That is the democratic system that is out there.

However, passing Bill C-24 and going to all Canadians is not right. I have stated that I do not think Lucien Bouchard wants his tax dollars to go to the Canadian Alliance or the PC Party or the Liberal Party. No, that is not what he wants. That is the situation with a lot of Canadians. I have used Lucien Bouchard as an example.

I am saying I want to see an honest and democratic process in place. If the Prime Minister feels that what we have had as a process is not fair and just, then there are ways to make changes. There are amendments that have been put before the House with regard to the bill. One was just moved. I also had an amendment, but because of the amendment that has been put forward I will not place my amendment on the floor.

I will say that having spent 10 years in the House of Commons, I really am dismayed that Bill C-24 is before the House. I ask that we not endorse the bill at this time. I ask that all members go back to the process that we had which was fair and just, and Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, my very next sentence was leading up to what all this really illustrates. There are problems on the government side and that is what Bill C-24 is really about. The Prime Minister is trying to deflect these problems by claiming that there is a perception of problems and that he has introduced this bill to take care of all those problems, but in fact it definitely will not take care of them.

Because it will not take care of the problems, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor:

“Bill C-24, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing) be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the purposes of reconsidering clause 40 with a view to investigating ways in which all taxpayer subsidies for political parties could be completely eliminated”.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am signalling to you that you are somewhat diverging from the subject at hand. We are discussing Bill C-24. Please come back to the matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to talk about the raising of money. As I said earlier in my speech, we just simply do not believe that political parties should take money from taxpayers. They should be required to raise the money from the people who they claim to represent.

The Prime Minister said that we needed the legislation to remove the perception that the Liberal Party was giving lucrative contracts, grants and loans to political supporters, and he is right. Bill C-24 would remove the perception that these things are not happening because there will not be any corporate donor trails for the Canadian Alliance to follow to reveal the corruption. However Bill C-24 would not change the reality of political patronage and untendered contracts being awarded to supporters of the Liberal Party.

There will still be untendered contracts awarded to friends and relatives. There will still be payments for reports that do not exist. There will still be ministerial interference in the approval of loans and grants by government agencies, and it will be almost impossible for us to trace those connections.

The Prime Minister will still be free to make phone calls to the Business Development Bank of Canada and order them to give loans to his friends. It will not change any of that at all. The bill is a fraud. It is an excuse to take taxpayer money and give it to political parties, and it will not make the slightest bit of difference to the awarding of untendered contracts and improper practices that are occurring daily on that side of the House.

While all this is going on, it will be taxpayers who will be watching the Liberal government shovelling money out of the treasury and into the coffers of political parties.

As I said, the Liberals claim they introduced Bill C-24 to deal with the perception that there were problems over there, but there are problems over there. Many of those problems are presently with the RCMP for investigation. The problems were revealed for the main part in response to attacks by opposition parties, particularly the Canadian Alliance, over what appeared to be links between the donations made by corporations and individuals to the Liberal Party of Canada and the subsequent awarding of contracts, grants, loans and special deals.

Let me give an example. The industry minister recently announced a $60 million handout to two private companies in Ottawa headed by an Ottawa billionaire. He should be embarrassed to even ask for the $60 million. A billionaire asked the government over there, the Minister of Industry, to give him $60 million. He is Terence Matthews, an identified Liberal donor. He donated $25,000 recently to the Deputy Prime Minister's leadership campaign.

The minister has claimed that the $60 million awarded to the two companies of Terence Matthews is not a gift, that he expects every nickel to be repaid. How many times have we heard that. Unfortunately, the Technology Partnership Canada program, under which the $60 million was awarded, has a less than satisfactory history of success. It has handed out close to $2 billion but has only been repaid $35 million.

It is hard for the average Canadian taxpayer to imagine how the government could have the gall to give $60 million to a billionaire to fund something that he should have funded himself.

As if the handout was not bad enough just in itself, in return for the generosity, the minister and Technology Partnership Canada have agreed to accept share warrants for a pre-determined number of shares in Mr. Matthew's companies. Now we are in the share market business with taxpayer money. The problem is those shares do not trade on any stock exchange because they are shares in private companies. Their value will be decided at some point in the future by financial institutions and the government. It is unbelievable that we give $60 million to a billionaire, then we take shares and we do not even know what they are worth. It is an absolutely incredible thing.

I figure that if and when Mr. Matthews takes his companies public, which he might do, either we will make some money on these shares or we will lose our shirt. Either way, we really have no business being in this part of the business.

Are you indicating my time is running out or to keep focused, Mr. Speaker?

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

I hear the parliamentary secretary interrupting again and crying out and asking how many bottles of champagne there are at Stornoway. Obviously I do not have an intimate knowledge of the wine cellar at Stornoway, but I would expect the Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, just as I would expect the Prime Minister, to have an appropriate amount of appropriate liquors, wines and foods for the times when he entertains heads of state and important people from around the country.

The leader of my party has an important job to do as Leader of the Official Opposition and it is entirely appropriate that he have the correct tools to do his job. Part of that toolbox involves the wine cellar at Stornoway for the sorts of events that he might hold. He has to interact with the movers and shakers of the business community of the country, with international heads of state and with important people who are interested in the political process and who may want to make representations to him about the way the government is handling the portfolio.

Frankly, if the minister over there or in fact any of the members on that side think they can rattle me by throwing these things at me, they are completely wrong because I feel perfectly comfortable with the positions we take on bills.

I want to get back to fundraising. Raising money eyeball to eyeball from individuals is the way the Canadian Alliance has always done it. We have been very comfortable with that and we would have been happy to continue to work under those rules. Even the 25% average that we have collected from corporations over the past five years, most of it was from small corporations giving $1,000 or less, which is the amount allowed in the bill anyway. When we look at those small contributions, the $1,000 to $1,100 amounts, they are often from mom and pop-type businesses that give a corporate cheque because their accountant only decides at the end of the year whether the money will go under their individual incomes or under corporate spending.

That was one reason that our party supported the $1,000 figure for corporate donations, even though, on principle, we were not opposed to the idea of no political donations. We felt it facilitated individual donations to have that small limit there. I am not sure if it will necessarily stand up to a charter challenge but, nevertheless, the concept is not particularly offensive to us.

As I mentioned, the Canadian Alliance has always raised its money directly from its supporters. When I joined the Reform Party back in 1987 it was very small party and it did not have the benefit of tax deduction status. We had to start from nothing with nothing and within 10 years we became the official opposition in the Government of Canada. That was a big achievement because a party needs a lot of passion from supporters behind it to raise the money to achieve that.

I am actually very disappointed in the bill that the government did not accept some of the recommendations that I made to make it easier for small parties to get started. One of those recommendations was the 50 candidate rule.

The government has consistently tried to prevent parties from having registered status, tax receipt status, by requiring them to run 50 candidates in ridings in a general election. The fact is that when the Reform Party first started we could not do that. This is unfair. It penalizes small parties. The fact is that a party needs 12 members for recognition as a party in this place,

During the hearings on Bill C-2, which was the overhaul of the elections act in 1999 and 2000, the committee, on which I was a member, had representations from most of the small parties operating in this country, the Green Party, the Communist Party, a whole list of them, and I had discussions with them.

There actually was a court case in Ontario that ruled that a party was actually two persons and that running two candidates was sufficient. Even the small parties agreed that was going to the other extreme from the 50 candidates.

Our committee reached an agreement that it should be 12 candidates. I went to the minister with that and said that in order to avoid any more tax challenges, which have already cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars fighting a ridiculous fight, why do we not make it 12 candidates. I told the minister that all the small parties had agreed to that number, that we could be put it into Bill C-2 and the issue would be finished. There would be no more court cases. The minister was absolutely bullheaded and would not do it. This fight has continued on and will go all the way to the Supreme Court and cost us an absolute fortune.

Bill C-24 gave us the opportunity to revisit the issue. I tried in vain to get the minister to go back to this and change it to 12 members but he would not do it. I cannot help but feel that he has not properly assessed the risk here and that he just does not care about taxpayer money. He seems oblivious to the fact that he is wasting millions of dollars fighting these battles which he cannot win.

One of the other battles in which he is currently involved and one which he cannot win is the one having to do with third party advertising. This is the right, in a free and democratic country, for third parties, that is people outside the political process, to bring up issues and spend money on supporting candidates or issues during election campaigns completely outside the electoral process.

The government has fought that for at least 15 years. First it was the Tory Party and now it is the Liberals. This has been ongoing. The minister has spent tens of millions of dollars fighting against this third party advertising which the courts keep striking down. His argument is that because of a ruling in Quebec, which had to do with the Quebec referendum and that there should be spending limits on the yes and no side in a referendum and no third party interference, that this is justification for applying the same rules to an election.

The fact is that is faulty logic. A referendum has a yes and a no question on the ballot. A person either votes yes or no. There is no other issue.

If a person gives some money to a yes side and some money to a no side to fight the battle leading up to voting day, I think most people, and perhaps all people, would agree it is entirely fair to then exclude third parties from that. Then it becomes unfair. If we want a fair fight, then we allow the yes side and the no side to fight fairly with limitations.

When this is applied to an election, an unlimited number of issues will come to the fore during an election. Political parties will not bring up the things they do not want to talk about. Therefore, it is only fair that third parties be allowed to intervene and spend some money on themselves.

Before I go on, Mr. Speaker, might I ask for unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Surrey Central. If there is unanimous consent for that, I will split my time; otherwise I will not.

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

The parliamentary secretary yells out the Fraser Institute, but the Fraser Institute solicits for donations quite extensively for the work that it does, so I am not sure we can compare it directly with academics.

In any case, the academics who came before us claimed to know what was good for taxpayers and supported the idea that political parties should be funded by taxpayers, but I am not sure these academics really know what is good for the average taxpayer because they do not actually pay taxes.

I know many of them would take offence to that by brandishing their paycheques and saying “Look, there are deductions there, I do pay taxes”. However the fact is that professors, publicly paid workers, people like myself, members of Parliament in this place, do not pay taxes because the money we receive in our paycheques comes out of this big pot of taxpayer money. We take some money out and we put some money right back in. That is not paying taxes.

The people who pay taxes are the private sector workers, the people who create the wealth in this country, and it is the deductions from their paycheques, it is the corporate taxes from the private sector that goes into the big pot from which we take our salaries. Those are the ones who are paying taxes.

When these academics come along and say that they pay taxes and they think it is a good idea that taxpayer money should be used to fund political parties, I think they have a conflict of interest.

In fact, I have always thought it would be a good idea if public sector workers did not pay any taxes at all and were only paid the net amount of their paycheques. Therefore professors, members of Parliament and public sector workers would only get the pay that comes in their net paycheque. They would pay no taxes and they would not have to file tax returns.

We can only think how much money the government would save every year if none of the public servants had to file tax returns because we were not playing this silly game of pretending that they pay taxes when they do not.

I do not think the government's side has consulted with real taxpayers, the people who create the wealth in this country, who actually will be paying the cost of Bill C-24.

If the government would have given us this summer to go back to our ridings and talk to the people in our ridings about the cost of this bill, I think there would have been a huge public uprising against it, and by the time we returned here in September the Prime Minister would not have been able to get his pet project through this place because there would have been too much public reaction.

On Tuesday, as I mentioned, less than three hours after we had begun this debate, the government House leader was up on his feet moving an end to the debate.

The fact is that Bill C-24 was the brainchild of the Prime Minister. It was clearly for him the most important piece of legislation on the agenda. That is incredible because we have issues like SARS, mad cow disease, youth crime, the definition of marriage and enormous budgetary overruns with the gun registry, into which we keep finding new amounts of money disappearing but for which the government failed to tell us. We also have the issues of corruption and bribery charges at Citizenship and Immigration, the need to establish a national sex offender registry, which has been dragging on for years and years, and an urgently needed revision of the Indian Act.

All of those things were taken off the table so the Prime Minister's bill, forcing taxpayers to pay for the day to day operations of the political parties, could be rammed through the House.

The bill will soon be in the other place. However, once it receives royal assent, the voters of Canada will have been placed in the position of having to pay to vote in a federal election. This will not be handing over cash to the poll clerk at the polling station. They will not have to pony up with their credit cards or open their wallets and bring out a toonie. It will not be by direct payment at the polling station but it will be via a raid on the public treasury by the government subsequent to election day.

For each and every vote cast, $1.75 will be taken from taxpayers to be shared among the major political parties based upon their percentage of the vote.

What that means, if we use the year 2000 election figures, is that the Liberal Party will receive more than $9.5 million from taxpayers starting in the year 2004 when this bill comes into force.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like thank the parliamentary secretary for his acknowledgement of my help during some of the drafting of the bill. I would not want that to be interpreted as support for the bill because, in fact, we do not support the bill.

It is a shame that we are not on questions and comments. I would have liked to ask the parliamentary secretary, when he mentioned the important work that parties do between elections that needs to be funded, what exactly is this important work that his Liberal Party does between elections that warrants the transfer of $9.5 million a year to his party's structure, not to the parliamentary wing but just to the administrative arm of his party?

I would have wanted to ask him that question because frankly I would have difficulty identifying anything that the Liberal Party administrative wing does for anybody in Canada between elections. Frankly, it is going to use the $9.5 million simply to run its offices and keep people on the payroll who are not actually contributing much to the running of the country at all.

I am not sure that this public funding can be justified on the basis of the important work. That is very self serving and it is certainly a judgment of the party itself. I would suspect that if we went out onto the street outside of this place and ask Canadians if they could identify some of the important work that parties do for them between elections, I bet they would not be able to identify a single thing. We may think it is very important, but I am not sure that the average taxpayer would think so.

If I had been able to ask him questions, I would have asked, what is the unholy rush to push this bill through the House? We barely had this bill back in the House from committee for less than three hours of debate and the government House leader was standing in his place moving time allocation on this bill and closing down the debate. What could possibly be the emergency that would require the closing down of debate in less than three hours? That averages out at less than half a minute of speaking time for every member of this place. Is that reasonable, Mr. Speaker? I think not and I can see you are almost nodding your head, so you probably do agree with me. It is unreasonable to be moving time allocation on a bill with less than three hours of debate in this place.

The fact is the bill would not be in force until January 1, 2004. There is a lot of time for further consultation and I will talk about the quality of the consultation of the government side a little later in my speech. There is plenty of time for consultation over the summer break while we are back in our ridings. We can talk with average Canadians instead of academics and interested parties or special interests. We could speak with our own constituents over the summer and we could come back here in September with the true message for the government. That is when we should be continuing the debate and passage of this bill. It should not be rammed through as it will be tonight. We are adding barely two hours this afternoon. Frankly, it is a disgrace, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you feel as embarrassed about it as I do.

I am surprised that almost all of the members on the government side appear to feel no guilt whatsoever for the fact that they are making a blatant grab of taxpayers' money from the treasury to transfer it to the coffers of political parties. I cannot believe for a moment that average taxpayers would think that was a good thing to do. They would be shocked. I suspect many Canadians do not even realize what is happening with this bill. They are being asked to pay to vote because when they go to the polling station and cast that ballot, it is as if the poll clerk was asking them to open their wallet, slap down the credit card so that they could put $1.75 on that credit card. That is the effect this bill would have. It would make voters pay for the transfer of money to political parties.

I suppose that taxpayers could protest this bill by not turning out to the polls because if no one turned out none of the political parties would get any money. In actual fact, this bill could have the opposite effect to the one that the government claims. It claims that it would reduce taxpayer or voter cynicism and encourage more people into the political process, and get them involved in the voting process. There is a potential for taxpayers to perhaps give us the Pierre Trudeau salute and not turn out at the polls. Thus they can deprive us of that $1.75 that is going to be transferred.

If there was another question I could have asked the parliamentary secretary when he was up, it would have been about the nomination contestant rules. He mentioned the reporting requirements that would be required now for nomination races. The fact is they are very complicated. It would often require an auditor or a special agent. Records must be kept of all the types of donations, by category and class of donor. Reports must be filed with the Chief Electoral Officer. A special bank account must be opened to administer the files, records must be kept, and bank statements sent to the Chief Electoral Officer. This is an extremely complicated process. In fact, even for those of us who are used to working within a bureaucratic environment, it is quite a daunting piece of legislation when we look at what we would have to go through for our nomination meetings next time around.

When the parliamentary secretary claims that it would make it easier for women or any traditionally disadvantaged people to get involved in the race because they have restricted the amount of money people can spend, he completely fails to mention that the increased bureaucracy would turn off a lot of people. It would actually discourage them. In fact, I took a section of this bill home with me last weekend to north Vancouver and I showed a few lay people that section of the bill. I asked them if they would be interested in running for office if they had to do this. Every single one of the people said that it would be a discouragement to run for office because of the amount of paperwork that would be required.

Certainly those who do not have a business background would be further discouraged. Someone who is used to working as a receptionist and might like to run for office or give it a try would take a look at this and say that what is being proposed in Bill C-24 is an administrative jungle. It may be too complicated for people to bother. We may be eliminating a number of people from the possibility of running for office who have the sorts of skills that would be useful here, but will not run because they do not have the skills that would enable them to run these complicated bureaucratic reporting rules.

I would like to talk about the consultation process because the parliamentary secretary mentioned that the key elements of this bill are a result of a great deal of consultation. The fact is there was virtually no consultation with taxpayers. I sat on the committee. In fact, I have been the Canadian Alliance critic for this bill ever since it was at second reading in this place. I sat on the committee with the other members, so I saw all of the witnesses who came forward. I even put forward a list of people to invite. The fact is the academics and special interest groups who came before the committee were not necessarily representative of average Canadians.

Last weekend while I was back in my riding I asked a few average taxpayers, friends, and relatives how much they knew about Bill C-24 and whether or not they felt comfortable with the notion of taxpayers' money being transferred to political party coffers. Again, people rejected this notion that it was a good idea to take taxpayers' money and transfer it to political parties.

When the government side says there has been consultation, it was very selective in who it consulted. It brought in a bunch of academics. With all due respect to academics, the fact is academics rely on taxpayers for their salaries and many of them have spent their entire lives being paid by the public purse.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate at third reading on Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing).

The key elements of this bill are the result of a tremendous amount of consultation. An important part of the consultation process occurred during the hearings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee heard from some forty witnesses representing a wide spectrum of political parties, interest groups and individuals.

In my remarks today, I would like to focus on the key changes that have been made to the bill, all of which I believe have improved the legislation, while at the same time respecting the fundamental principles of this important initiative.

As I move forward to examine some of these changes, I think that it will become clear that not only have those principles been respected, but that the government has also been very sensitive to the concerns of political parties and individual members.

In the area of disclosure, I believe the discussion to date has clearly shown that there is a great deal of support for the extension of disclosure requirements to electoral district associations, leadership contestants and nomination contestants.

Interestingly, apart from the supporting commentary, the comments on the disclosure provisions have come from two different directions. Some have argued that the provisions do not go far enough, while others feel the provisions place too much burden on political participants

I believe that, with the amendments, we have been able to address both of these concerns to a certain extent, while at the same time maintaining what are very reasonable requirements.

On the one hand, the bill now requires that political parties who receive the quarterly allowance would have to submit a quarterly report on the contributions they receive. This obligation would not come into force until January 1, 2005, to allow parties some time to gear up to this further requirement.

On the other hand, there have been a series of significant changes, which I believe will go a long way to appeasing concerns about the increased burden.

First, for very small donations, parties would not be obligated to provide receipts. Initially, the bill had proposed that all contributions of $10 or more would have to be receipted. Now, when parties have fundraisers where they pass the hat, no receipt would be needed for donations up to $25. I would like to thank the member for North Vancouver for his work in the drafting of this motion.

Secondly, the threshold beyond which nomination contestants would have to file a report on contributions received or expenses incurred has been increased from $500 to $1,000. This change reduces the administrative burden imposed on nomination contestants.

The bill has also been amended to simplify the registration rules for electoral district associations following a redistribution process. Existing registered electoral district associations would be able to continue their existence in a new district upon the dissolution of their old districts by application of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

A pre-registration process would allow other associations to pre-register so that they can come into existence immediately when the representation order becomes effective.

Finally, electoral district associations would be relieved from the obligation to report contributions received since the 2000 election, when they register.

Limits on contributions from individuals and the prohibition on corporate and union donations form the backbone of the bill's measures, aimed at limiting the perception of undue influence from the wealthy, from corporations and from unions.

During the hearings, most witnesses made it clear that they felt the $10,000 limit for individuals was too high. The committee ultimately accepted an amendment that would reduce the limit to $5,000. I am confident that in the end the $5,000 limit will provide an appropriate balance between achieving our objective of removing the perception of influence while at the same time recognizing the importance of financial contributions for a healthy electoral system.

I would like to add that another important amendment has been made to allow candidates to contribute an additional $5,000 to their own campaigns, the idea being therefore concern about people influencing government or candidates and so forth, and we do not see the need to be concerned about candidates influencing themselves.

Another amendment accepted by the committee provides that leave with pay given to an employee who is running as a candidate would not be counted as a contribution by the employer during the election period. I want to emphasize that it is only during the election period and not before the election period. Furthermore, party membership fees of up to $25 annually would not be considered to be a contribution.

With regard to the prohibition on corporate and union donations and the $1,000 exception, we have seen a range of views expressed in the past few months. Some have argued that there should be no limits or higher limits, while others have argued that corporations and unions should be banned outright from contributing.

As the minister and I have made clear all along, moving the prohibition or increasing the limit would in my view go against a fundamental principle of the bill. At the same time I recognize, as the government does, that the $1,000 exception is important to political participants at the local level.

Taking everything into consideration, it is clear that we must take the strongest possible measures to ensure that the perception of influence is removed from the system. That can only be achieved through the prohibition.

That being said, there have been some significant amendments made to this section of the bill. Corporations, unions and associations would be allowed to make a second contribution up to $1,000 when a second election was held in the same riding in the same year. Furthermore, corporations, unions and associations would be allowed to make a further $1,000 contribution to a winning nomination contestant when a first contribution was made during that year to a nomination contestant who did not win the nomination contest in that riding.

In other words, if one person runs for the nomination and loses and a company gives a contribution to that first person and the person loses, there should not be a concern about that first contribution influencing the person who won. Therefore the ability is there to give a donation also to the winning candidate.

With regard to spending limits for nomination contestants, some members indicated the limit of 50% would still be too high to ensure that nomination contests were open and fair to all potential candidates. As a result, the committee accepted an amendment that would see the spending limit reduced to 20% of that limit allowed for candidates in the last election. This should result in a much more level playing field for nomination contest.

We heard a great deal of concern about this issue from witnesses, especially from some of our colleagues in the House, particular those who are women. They felt that allowing large amounts of money to be spent on nomination races too often gave an advantage to male candidates and disadvantaged women candidates. By limiting the spending on nomination candidacies or nomination campaigns to 20% of the limit in the last election should be quite a reasonable limit and should stop that problem in the future, and provide a much more level playing field.

Finally, I would like to turn to the issue of public funding which has received the most attention out of all the measures contained in the bill. During the committee hearings, public funding was clearly the key issue for many witnesses, and in particular, the public allowance. Many witnesses pointed out the important role of public funding and, in particular, the need for ongoing public funding for parties so they could undertake the important work they needed to accomplish in between elections.

With regard to the public allowance specifically, the discussion was not centred on getting rid of it but rather on different types of formulas that could be used. The end result of this discussion did not really produce a unanimous opinion on the best formula or on the right level for that allowance.

But as I have maintained throughout the process, and as the minister has maintained, while one of our key objectives is to eliminate the perception of influence through contribution limits, and the prohibition on corporate and union donations, we must accomplish this in a way that ensures that parties and candidates do not end up losing.

We need to ensure that political participants have the funds they need to be compensated for the loss in union and corporate contributions. Again, we have listened to their concerns and there have been a number of important amendments. The quarterly public allowance has been increased from $1.50 to $1.75 per year per vote received in the previous general election. Early in the process members expressed their concern that the allowance was not indexed. Some were concerned about the level of it and whether it was sufficient. We listened to those concerns and that resulted in the change in the level. But also there was a concern about the fact that it was not indexed. The minister has responded to these concerns and now the allowance would be indexed under the bill.

The Receiver General would be entitled to pay part of the public allowance to a party's provincial or territorial association if so authorized by the party leader. As a transitional measure to assist parties, the 2004 allowance would be paid in a lump sum as soon as possible after the act comes into force. Parties would be provided with a reimbursement of election expenses at a rate of 60% for the next election only, as a transitional measure. Thereafter the rate of reimbursement would be at 50% as originally proposed in the bill.

We know that this will be a substantial change in the way things happen. Usually, during an election campaign, parties are able to raise a considerable amount of money with fundraising efforts. In the past, money came from corporations, unions and so forth. That will not be possible any more so instead we have this process where at the beginning of next year the amount for next year will be given out at the beginning rather than on a quarterly basis which should assist parties with the transition. As well, we have the 60% rebate for the next election which should help with that transition process.

The rate of reimbursement of a candidate's election expenses has been raised from 50% to 60% across in all ridings. We can all agree that these are significant amendments which recognize the important role played by parties and candidates in our political system.

With the important amendments that have been made, I believe we have been sensitive to the concerns that have come forward, and we have acted on them.

As a result, we have improved the legislation, while at the same time respecting the principles of the bill and achieving our important objectives.

In the end, we have a bill that builds on our political traditions, and that would go a long way to helping us achieve our objective of having an electoral system that all Canadians can believe in.

I call on all members to support this important legislation.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, for the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved that Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing), be read the third time and passed.

Political Party Financing

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across is pretending today that he is in favour of Bill C-24 and to have the rules in place now regarding everything that is in the bill including transparency. He and his party have systematically blocked this bill at every occasion, but today the bill will pass and it will be the law of the land.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, there is always a time and place for supporting community events, especially when they are very important to the constituents.

I say to hon. members opposite that maybe this is a good example of how they will be supporting Bill C-24, the political financing act, because they agree with transparency.

Citizenship Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify for the opposition the important role that public funding plays in our political system. Of course, it already plays an important role in our system.

In 1974 Parliament laid the foundation for election financing in Canada by enacting the Election Expenses Act which introduced spending limits for registered political parties and candidates; reporting of party and candidate spending and revenues, and public funding through income tax credits for political contributions; and partial reimbursement of election expenses for parties and candidates. Even back in 1974 we started to introduce public funding for the political process. In fact, as things stand now, even without Bill C-24 approximately 60% of political funding in this country comes from the public purse. It is not a new element in Canadian politics.

All the parties in the House have benefited from these provisions, including the Canadian Alliance. After the 2000 election and in previous elections when there were Reform Party candidates or Canadian Alliance candidates or CRA, it is clear that they received rebates, particularly those candidates who had more than 15% of the vote.

I am looking forward to hearing from the hon. member when he speaks again in a moment because I am interested to know how many of the members of Parliament on his side returned the reimbursement they received if they are so strongly against public funding of the political process. I think we will find that the answer is none, but I will leave it to him to answer the question. Perhaps he can fill us in and enlighten the House on how many members on his side actually returned those rebates.

Canadians have long accepted the importance of providing financial support to political participants. Indeed, this fact was made repeatedly during the discussion on Bill C-24 in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on which I sit. I heard it many times from many of the witnesses we heard from during the meetings we had on this topic.

Canadians recognize the important role played by parties in our system in developing policy and representing the views of Canadians on an ongoing basis. They recognize that parties justifiably require some public resources to carry out those functions. They know that the policy development process is an important one for all of us. They know it is important to have the outreach that parties engage in and that it costs money, but it is important to support that process.

Canadians also know that parties have varying abilities to raise money and to finance themselves. It may not always reflect the number of people in the country who support them, but this process will allow that to happen so that it will reflect the support they receive in an election.

Is there some other ideal way that might be better than this? Maybe someone can come up with one, but of all the various ways that have been examined that might fund political parties and fund the process, this is the best of those that are available.

That is why it is being used now in Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. That is why it is the system that we have adopted. It is the best we have seen. There are others, but I think they have many flaws in them. This system may not be perfect, but it is the best available. I think it is a good system.

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

Madam Speaker, my question this evening is on the subject of Bill C-24, the political financing act. Last week I rose in the House to question the government about the proposed amendments to the bill. Now that the amendments have been officially tabled and voted on, this may be somewhat academic, but I want to ask some further questions about these amendments.

First let me outline some of the amendments that were tabled yesterday and have just been voted through. The direct statutory annual allowance paid to parties will go from $1.50 per vote that the party obtained in the last election to $1.75 per vote. Incidentally, this is going to guarantee the Liberals an annual subsidy of over $9 million, year in, year out.

The reimbursement of election expenses to individual candidates who win more than 15% of the vote will be raised from 50% to 60% of their election expenses. Similarly, the reimbursement for election expenses to national parties is being raised from 50% to 60%. This represents a massive grab of taxpayers' money for political parties, particularly of course for the Liberal Party of Canada, which is hoping to lock in its political success from the past election through a formula which ensures that each party will be paid according to the number of votes that it received in the prior election.

Voters often change their minds during a government's mandate. With this new system, a party's chances at the next election are tied to its performance in the previous one, and this is a problem which I can best explain by means of an historical analogy.

In the 1988 election, Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives won a strong mandate and more votes than the other parties. In the 1993 election, the Conservative vote collapsed. The Liberal vote soared, as did the vote of my party, the Reform Party at the time, and the current Prime Minister came to power. Clearly voters had changed their minds during that mandate. However, had the proposed new funding rules been in place during that period, the Progressive Conservatives would have continued to receive $1.75 each year for every single ballot they had received in the 1988 election, even as their popularity plummeted and the popularity of the parties that opposed them rose. Those other parties would have been denied a level of financing that would have been commensurate with the level of support they were receiving from the public, given the fact that many of the voters who had formerly supported the Conservatives had since decided that some other party now best represented their point of view and deserved their support.

It goes without saying that the same situation would occur today if the Liberals were to find their support level declining from the levels they enjoyed in the election of November 27, 2000. The same thing would be true if my party, the Canadian Alliance, or any other party were to see its level of support go up or down. Like flies caught in amber, their annual subsidies would go on reflecting the electoral results of a prior election without any reflection of how voters are thinking.

To avoid this kind of confusion, I strongly recommend to the House the amendment suggested by former NDP leader Ed Broadbent. In a presentation to the House of Commons committee considering this bill, Mr. Broadbent suggested that instead of basing the annual payment to parties on the results of the prior election, citizens should be permitted to direct their proportionate share of the subsidy to the party of their choice each year by means of a question that would be included on their income tax return form. Already it is possible to register for the voters list by doing this.

This solution would be fair. It would be democratic. It would allow people to give money to the party they actually support should they find their support changing, or even to a minor party which has no representation in the House of Commons. This was not considered in any serious way during the debate over the amendments to this bill. My question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is simply this: Why was it not considered?

Canada Elections Act

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

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak on the third group of amendments. I want to start by commenting on the last suggestions made by the hon. member who just spoke. He referred to Bill C-2, which I also sponsored. His colleague from North Vancouver sat on the committee when we dealt with this bill.

According to him or whoever wrote his speech, the bill tightens the elections rules in a way that is too tight. In other words, it does not give opportunities to smaller political parties. This is revisionist history at its best, because of course everyone who was around here after the 1993 election remembers that the first set of amendments we made to the Elections Act, after our government came to power, was a bill sponsored by a then Reform MP to tighten up because marginal political parties were getting a subsidy. The bill was under the name of Ray Speaker, I believe, and it had to do with eliminating the subsidy to a group that called itself the Natural Law Party, because it was a fringe group and not a political party in the traditional sense of the definition. It served to do just that.

Whoever wrote his speech failed to take that into account. The hon. member should go back to him or her and ask the writer to read Hansard . Hansard is good stuff. It tells us all kinds of useful information, particularly about what we did ourselves. That is always useful.

He may also want to take the transcript of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The then chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, was just excellent at chairing that committee. So excellent were his skills that he is now the Speaker of the House of Commons. It was at this committee that we did the work at the initiation of a Reform, now Alliance, MP. So much for that.

I would now like to speak to Motion No. 12. I agree with the member who just spoke. The amendment proposed by the New Democrats simply does not work. Incidentally, I proposed this amendment following a speech by a colleague of the hon. member opposite, the member for North Vancouver, who indicated that there was a flaw.

He was right. This flaw did exist. If there were no receipts for funds collected by riding associations since 2000, we would not know what to do. Before 2000, fine, there is a type of grandfather clause. However, for money collected since 2000, we have to know where it came from, but there was no rule saying that we had to know where it came from, so we did not know.

Which is why he was right to raise this point. The member for Edmonton—Strathcona is quite right when he says that this motion moved by our colleague from the New Democratic Party does not work.

If this motion were to be carried, there would be thousands of dollars in riding association accounts that would go nowhere; they would be in a sort of limbo, because it would be impossible to track them. For this reason, we cannot agree to the amendment proposed by my colleague.

I thank all members for their contributions to report stage. I ask them all to vote for Bill C-24.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the Group No. 3 amendment to Bill C-24. This is the first opportunity I have had to address this bill. There has been a lot of excitement on both sides of the House pertaining to this legislation. I wish it were more favourable. I wish the government had put more teeth into the legislation and had actually carried through with some of the things that unfortunately are missing from the bill. Within my discourse I will try to address some of the bill's failures.

One thing that is astounding in discussing this bill is the timing of the bill being in the House and the priorities of the government. The government is trying to rush through legislation which, in its opinion, is very important especially at a time when there are crises going on across the country. As members know, SARS is causing problems for many people around the Toronto area and there is the problem of mad cow disease out west and its effect on the livelihoods of cattle producers in that part of the country. We have faced other problems and challenges across the country over the last number of months, and on the eve of the last week of Parliament we are discussing a bill that is strictly in the interests of this particular government.

Bill C-24 has been brought forward because the government wants to address, possibly even corruption, in political financing. It is the same government that has been in power for the last 10 years. There is some sort of ironic logic that comes with this bill if the government is trying to address issues of influence peddling or corruption or whatever it might be or even if it is trying to mask these issues because the government will in fact benefit from the changes in this legislation by receiving more public money in the case of subsidization.

The reason we have this legislation is that the government has been incompetent in dealing with many issues pertaining to transparency and accountability. The government has been incompetent in dealing with all the things that Canadians want to see from their government. The Liberal government has been lacking on those issues and it has to bring in legislation to mask the problem. It is trying to deal with the fact that it has managed things so poorly over the last number of years it has been in power and now we are debating this legislation at this period in time. Bill C-24 contains only half measures when it comes to what Canadians would like to see with regard to having financing legislation in place that would in fact bring in the things the government talks about.

I would like to address for a moment Motion No. 12 which is an NDP motion. We feel there is a lot missing in Bill C-24. We in the Alliance will oppose this motion. We feel the motion would actually work against riding associations across the country. The motion put forward by our colleague from Winnipeg Centre requires a registered association of a political party to provide all information with regard to contributions. Where it becomes problematic is if an association misses its reporting deadline, it could be convicted of a criminal offence and could face up to $5,000 worth of fines.

It seems that this sort of amendment is unnecessary. The bill already contains provisions for associations to do this. I am curious as to why the NDP feels that we need to punish some of the riding associations. If they made an honest mistake, why would we want to punish them in this way?

I do not think we necessarily need this amendment. However our colleagues from the NDP feel it is something that needs to be dealt with. I think it is a short-sighted amendment and one which may not necessarily work in the interests of riding associations. If anything, I think it would work against them. The Canadian Alliance will be voting against Motion No. 12.

I would like to address some of the failures in Bill C-24, and there is no shortage of failures unfortunately. An hon. member across the way is encouraging me to carry on with my discourse. I know he wants to learn about these failures and maybe he will try to amend the legislation.

What does Bill C-24 fail to do? It fails to fix the underlying problem of awarding government grants, contracts and loans to supporters of the party in power. If anything, Bill C-24 would make it more difficult to detect and expose such behaviour.

What is interesting, and this is what I was talking about earlier as I opened my discourse, is the fact that we have this legislation being brought forward by a government that obviously has had one problem after the other when it comes to issues of contracts, scandals, loans, all these particular things that may in fact control the influence of these contracts, how money is spent and how it is awarded. This government has been in power for the last 10 years and now puts forward legislation to deal with these problems that have unfortunately only become worse under this government, yet it fails to address all the particular problems for which it has actually been accused of abuse.

Bill C-24 fails to correct the 50 candidate rule, which was struck down by the courts. I will just address this issue very quickly. In 1999, an Ontario court struck down the sections of the elections act which required a party to run 50 candidates in an election to remain on the register and to have its candidates listed with party affiliation on the ballot. The court indicated that two candidates should be sufficient to be recognized as a party.

During the revision of the elections act in 2000, the Liberals reinstated the 50 candidate rule even though the case is still under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The government says it is protecting voters from frivolous parties, but it is actually trying to limit competition on the ballot. Voters in countries that have other types of proportional representation systems often make their selections from up to 35 parties on the ballot. They have shown that they are capable of distinguishing between frivolous and serious candidates.

Are the Liberals trying to tell us that Canadian voters are not capable of making the same type of distinctions? I would only expect it from this government. It does not seem to want to allow Canadians to at least make decisions about who they want to represent them. Instead, it is trying to restrict more involvement from other political parties.

I would like to focus specifically on where Bill C-24 fails to end the patronage appointments to positions in Elections Canada. That is something I touched on briefly, but let us just follow up on this problem, where this legislation could have made such a huge impact on changing the way that patronage currently takes place.

Bill C-24 fails to end the practice of the governor in council making patronage appointments to fill returning officer positions at Elections Canada. Returning officers are presently political appointees of the Prime Minister. This is outrageous, considering that Elections Canada is supposed to a non-partisan electoral organization. The voters of Canada should not have to put up with the Prime Minister appointing Liberal Party hacks to prime positions as returning officers within Elections Canada. That works against an open and democratic system. The Chief Electoral Officer has repeatedly stated during committee hearings that it is critical he be given the power to hire returning officers based on merit.

He has also repeatedly stated that ideally he would like to adopt the provisions contained in a private member's bill put forward by one of the Canadian Alliance members, the member for North Vancouver, who also has done an incredible job in researching and working on this bill on behalf of our caucus. I would like to congratulate him for that. He put forward a private member's bill with respect to this. That bill would have eliminated the patronage at all levels of Elections Canada.

During the revisions of the Canada Elections Act a few years ago, the Chief Electoral Officer made it clear that he would not recommend adoption of the Canada Elections Act to a third world country or an emerging democracy. His exact words were:

...obviously when I go out on the international scene I do not recommend that the Canadian system be emulated where it comes to the appointment of returning officers. I clearly indicate, as I do in Canada, that the appointment of returning officers under the present system is an anachronism.

It is archaic. Elections Canada has repeatedly asked the government to release it from the system of patronage and allow it to hire its own staff for elections by advertising and interviewing like any other independent organization.

These are just a couple of the failures of this legislation. I could go on for a while, and I know that the hon. House leader of the government would love me to do so. Unfortunately, in the limited time we have I will have to conclude quite quickly, but hopefully the government will take heed some of the suggestions being made by my colleagues here in the official opposition and improve the legislation in the interest of Canadians, because Canadians deserve it.

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, this House is witnessing an historic moment. We are going to take a very important step to improve Canadians' faith in our electoral system.

I was elected in November 2000. As a candidate, I had to learn the electoral financing process, personally invest in order to run in the election and ask my party for financial assistance. I won and immediately thereafter I had to start talking financing in my riding.

First, I had to pay back my election debt and the money I borrowed from my party. I must say it was not easy to understand all the rules of the financing system, but I did my share for my party. I wanted my riding association to have access to a fund in order to help my constituents.

I must say that in 20 years of being a journalist, I always believed that the system's transparency was guaranteed by the act of disclosing political contributions. The logic was simple: if a company obtained a government contract, we looked to see if it had contributed to the party and we would go so far as to conclude, of course, that there was a cause and effect relationship.

But after hearing the opposition members drawing this simple conclusion, journalists reported a number of cases and the public also drew its own conclusions. That is why, today, we must tighten the rules and be even more vigilant. This government decided to do this, and we should be proud of it.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain why, in my opinion, the opposition's amendment, Motion No. 12, must be defeated.

The purpose of this bill is to overhaul the rules regarding political financing. There are new rules regarding nomination contests. These contests, their management and financing were not previously regulated by the Canada Elections Act. Similarly, the bill proposes rules for financing contests to select the leaders of registered parties, also not previously regulated.

As the hon. members know, this bill makes significant changes to allowable contributions, as well as to the categories of eligible donors. Finally, the bill provides for a much more complete system in terms of the disclosure and publication of contributions made to nomination or leadership contestants, candidates, riding associations, and political parties and provincial and territorial divisions of registered parties.

These are significant changes. I believe that these changes mark a key moment in the evolution of our electoral democracy. They help to ensure the trust of Canadians in our political system, and this is essential to the future of our parliamentary democracy.

These new rules change the way political parties will be financed in the future. Bill C-24 gives us a glimpse of the future, but it also raises questions. For example, what about contributions made before this bill comes into force.

The opposition is proposing reintroducing a section that was in previous legislation. I believe we must draw the line. Previous contributions should not be affected by the new rules.

In keeping with the bill, when amounts are transferred from trust funds, for example, to the accounts of riding associations before the bill comes into force, they will be recorded as part of the association's overall assets.

In many cases, the origin of these funds cannot be determined because they have accumulated over the years. The information might not be available any longer. So why get ourselves into such an impasse?

I must admit that I have trouble seeing the advantage for Canadians, and for our democratic system, in imposing rules which would result in exclusion of contributions made to a constituency association prior to the effective date of the bill.

On the contrary, I believe we need to turn over a new leaf. It is preferable for all this money to go to the constituency associations before Bill C-24 takes effect, even if this means they will be able to benefit from funds of unknown origin, and share the benefits with the constituents. The future is what is important. For that, we have guarantees. All funding will have to be reported. It will be recorded in the system and the constituency associations will need to be accountable.

Public confidence in the integrity of our electoral system has been seriously undermined in recent years. Transparency and accountability requirements are essential to the integrity of any political system. With this new legislation, Bill C-24, we have some rules to guarantee that transparency.

I therefore feel we have adequate guarantees, which will provide us with the means of achieving this objective of restoring public confidence in our electoral system.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, to be bipartisan, I want to state that I share my colleague's wish that this institution will certainly be worthy of the respect of Canadians. That is why I am very saddened by the fact that we are limited in how much we can debate this very important issue of how we finance political parties in Canada because it is a very crucial issue.

After a very limited period of debate on report stage and third reading, the government has invoked closure on this. It is completely unacceptable. Given the importance of the issue, there is no reason why we could not have a longer debate. The purpose of the institution of Parliament is supposed to be a deliberative assembly. When we shut down debate, we eliminate the whole purpose for the institution in the first place.

I want to speak to this motion and to the bill in general as well, since I have not had an opportunity as yet to go on the record. As the member opposite stated, we do not think this specific motion is necessary. We do not oppose increased calls for transparency or accountability. With respect to my own constituency association, we have a very modest level of funds in our account and we would have no problem opening up the books.

Going through the actual bill itself, and the summary of Bill C-24, we are discussing the whole regime of political financing. The first paragraph describes what the bill actually does: introducing limits on contributions made to Canada's electoral district associations, leadership and nomination contestants. We are not opposed to that.

The second paragraph imposes on registered electoral district associations, leadership contestants and nomination contestants the obligation to report to the chief electoral officer on contributions received and expenses incurred. Again, in terms of the general whole issue of transparency, the Canadian Alliance has been at the forefront calling for this.

Our concern, and one concern I can echo, is for those of us who have been involved in local campaigns. Obviously, for those of us with very active local associations, it is a lot easier to find someone who will do the books, the accounting and reporting. However I know, within my own riding, other parties that did not do so well had a tough time finding volunteers who would do all the reporting and be the official agent for the campaign.

I think we want to look at extending and enhancing the bureaucracy we require upon people to be active in political life. We want to ensure obviously transparency but a balance has to be struck to ensure that there is not too much bureaucracy or too many requirements so we prohibit people from entering and becoming active in political life.

I want to address the bulk of my talk to two other points, mainly with respect to the limits on corporate and union donations. This happens in various amendments in the bill. However the bill stipulates contributions to parties, candidates, electoral district associations, leadership contestants and nomination contestants may be made only by individuals who are subject to limits. A limited exception allows contributions of up to $1,000 to be made by corporations and trade unions or by associations for money given by individuals to registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates.

I want to state quite explicitly that we in the Canadian Alliance are very supportive of allowing for greater contributions by individuals in political campaigns and political parties. We as a party are much more dependant on individuals, our supporters and members than other political parties. We think that is where the bulk of this support ought to come from instead of relying upon corporate or union donations.

We have done a fair amount of work as a party in trying to inculcate that within our membership and our supporters that they should, by contributing, take ownership of the party, its apparatus, the ideas and the policy process.

If we look at the statistics from 1996 until 2001 and compare the corporate and individual donations per party, it is very instructive. The Liberal Party of Canada, through those years, raised over $53 million from corporate donations and $32 million from individual donations. If we compare that to what the Canadian Alliance raised, we see that the Canadian Alliance raised just over $13 million from corporation donations and over $34 million from individual donations. Given the fact that we obviously are not the governing party, I think that is a record for which we can be proud.

I should also point out that the NDP does rely to a greater extent on individual donations. It raised over $27 million through individual donations and $1 million through corporate donations, although a large amount of the NDP contributions come from union contributions. The Conservatives are about equal at about $18 million each, but again a higher proportion of their donations come from corporations.

On this point I would like to be clear and state that the Canadian Alliance is supportive of greater transparency and accountability within the system but it is also supportive of ensuring that the contributions by individual Canadians themselves are the greatest. To address the point made by the member who spoke before, we want to ensure that it is individual Canadians whose voices are heard rather than one or another interest group.

The last issue I want to address has to do with the public subsidy of political parties during election campaigns. There are so many things wrong with this that I want to point out a few of them. Obviously what is of concern at this time, given the fact that the government has invoked closure, is that for weeks and weeks the Prime Minister and the government House leader have stated that $1.50 per voter would be enough to balance off the loss in corporate and union donations. They then came back from committee and the government House leader announces today that it was the committee that recommended this.

The committee chairman, in the news reports today, stated that it was the Prime Minister's compromise, that the committee was simply fulfilling the Prime Minister's wish on it, which, instead of $1.50 per voter, has been pushed up to $1.75 per voter. No explanation has been given for this but one has to assume that there is one.

On our side of the House, because we are in opposition and because we have seen the government operate as it has over the past 10 years, we are a little suspicious. One would think, given the comments of the head of the Liberal Party of Canada about the funding shortfall, that the Liberals bumped up the amount from $1.50 to $1.75 to ensure that the Liberal Party would be in a positive position rather than a negative position.

That would be an unbelievable reason to change public policy if it is to ensure that one political party actually receives as much or more than it did in corporate donations. It violates a fundamental principle, a political principle. I actually think the legislation will be challenged in court because it violates a fundamental principle. It forces voters, Canadians, whether they agree with the party or not, to contribute to that political party. We are forcing people who are members of the NDP to contribute to the Alliance and people who support the Bloc to contribute to the Liberals. We are forcing them to do that through this enforced public subsidy and to me that violates the whole principle of political expression.

Political expression is not only the right to participate but the right not to support a certain political party or a certain political organization, and the right not to participate in certain ways of political life. That is the flip side of this issue as well.

I want to go back and talk about the increase from $1.50 to $1.75. We heard for weeks and weeks that the government, particularly the backbenchers, were having a tough time supporting the legislation and that they likely would delay the bill, kill it outright, vote against it or hope it dies in the Senate. There was sort of a collision course between the Prime Minister and his own caucus on this issue.

In order to come to a compromise, and the Liberal Party has been compromising since Confederation on issues, it was agreed that the $1.75 would please everyone or please no one but that everyone would end up voting for it. We in the Alliance think that is a fundamentally bad way to make public policy.

We not only opposed the increase in public subsidy from $1.50 to $1.75, but we opposed the $1.50 in the first place. The basic rule of involvement in political life should be that one supports the political party of one's choice. We should encourage more Canadians to become more active but we should do that in terms of them actually giving money to the party they support. That is the fundamental principle that should guide us and that is why we in the Canadian Alliance oppose the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, then maybe there is no evil.

I was very disappointed to learn that the committee dropped this section from Bill C-24, and I commend the member for Winnipeg Centre for trying to bring it back. What it does is provides an opportunity for the public to see what went on before, in riding associations especially, in terms of funds raised from large donors, particularly possibly corporations or any type of individual donor, and to see indeed inside these riding associations the size of contributions they have received.

This section would apply equally to the Liberals, to the Canadian Alliance, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives. While the vast majority of members in the House, I doubt not for a second, have modest amounts of money in their riding association accounts, they would be prepared not only to have transparency when this bill comes into effect, but to submit to transparency for the last two or three years, going back to the last election.

Why should any one of us in this chamber be afraid to show the public what kind of money we have had in our riding associations since the last election? Could it be that there are some who have large sums of money who would not stand the public scrutiny? The public might be appalled or scandalized to see that they have been receiving donations in the thousands of dollars and perhaps even the tens of thousands of dollars.

What if a riding association, which exists currently on any side of the House, has hundreds of thousands of dollars in its bank account? With this clause as it existed in Bill C-24, the public would have had a chance to see that. Now it is gone. If this motion fails, as indeed it is likely to fail because I do not believe it has the government's support, we will be unable to look into the past.

Some may argue that is a good thing and perhaps it is a good thing. Perhaps we would like to begin with a clean slate in which all MPs begin anew to make sure their riding associations' bank accounts and the moneys that flow in from any source whatever can stand the scrutiny of the public. I think it would have been a more proper thing to test us all, to put us all under the microscope today, not to give us an opportunity to bury the past and not divulge those of us who may be flirting with the rules, although not flirting with the rules so much as amassing money in a way in which the public would not agree and would find fault with.

I heard the comments of the member opposite, from the Canadian Alliance, and I was really surprised that he took the position he did. One would have thought the opposition of all parties ought to want the type of disclosure as was proposed in this motion, and as was proposed in the amendment that was deleted from Bill C-24. However, Mr. Speaker, I do submit to you that the Canadian Alliance is structured in such a way that most of the central party funds come from its riding associations.

Consequently, looking in the past, the Canadian Alliance is the party that is the most opaque. At least on the Liberal side a lot of the money flows directly into the registered party rather than simply into the riding association, although, we on this side have the same problem. Until this bill passes, the public will be unable to see into our riding association financial affairs and they should. People should be able to see. If people go to my website, they can see what is in the riding association bank account of John Bryden.

I regret it is necessary to pass legislation to ensure that all members of the House have the same level of transparency. I also regret we do not have an opportunity to look into the past. Maybe it is just as well.

The reason we need Bill C-24 is it is absolutely essential that we assure the public that the democracy we practise here is not fueled by money and that when individual MPs make their decisions here in the House or in committee or wherever they are, those decisions are based on conscience or listening to their constituents, but not listening to those constituents who have the most money to put into their riding associations or into their pockets as individual candidates.

Unfortunately, this motion and the original clause that was deleted do not address the question of separate trusts that MPs may have acquired, which is a whole other issue. I regret very much that when Bill C-24 passes, as far as I can see or determine, those MPs who have acquired trust accounts will be able to keep that money personally.

I think the only benefit that will come to the general public is that the people who have secret trust accounts, personal trust accounts, will have to collapse them and take them into their personal incomes. The small benefit of that is at least the taxpayer will have a chance to charge them taxes. The fact they will be able to acquire that money and that we will never be able to know they had these trust accounts, I do not think is good enough.

Again, I come back to the point that I think the member for Winnipeg Centre was very right to bring this motion back. I would hope it would pass because it is not such a bad thing to show the confidence of this House in the integrity of the political process is high enough that we are prepared to show the immediate past and to compare the immediate past with what we want to see happen in the future. Well we are not going to see the immediate past, and I think that is too bad. However at least we know that when we go ahead, those few MPs who have been tempted by the amassing of large sums of money either in their riding associations or in trust accounts are in the minority.

After the legislation passes and is implemented on January 1, 2004, as fast as possible, I think then we will begin a new era in this country, an era in which the transparency and the accountability of these members of Parliament, and of the political process federally in the country, will be of the highest order possible. Therefore, I sincerely hope the public will put the trust in this institution of the House of Commons, which I believe the majority of us deserve, although I really regret we have to pass legislation like this to guarantee that trust.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.

The purpose of Bill C-24 is, first, to restrict the amount of contributions allowed to political parties, riding associations, and candidates, including nominations and party leadership; second, to compensate political parties for the anticipated loss in revenue from large corporate and union donations by way of direct public financing; and finally, to extend the regulatory aspect of the Canada Elections Act in terms of registration and financial accounting to riding associations as well as nomination and leadership candidates.

The bill is yet another instance of the Liberals taking a good idea, bungling it, and turning it into a bad law. It represents a massive shift in the sources of contributions to political parties from the voluntary actions of the people and organizations to a mandatory imposition on all taxpayers. The bill would make all political parties more dependent upon the state and less responsive to the society we live in. It would represent a major intrusion by Elections Canada into internal party matters, both in terms of mandatory registration and the financial reporting requirements for riding associations, as well as time-consuming, ineffective paperwork for nominated and leadership candidates.

Political financing in Canada has long been in need of reform. Since the founding of this great country governments have been trading political favours to pay for political costs. Many scandals have come to light since then. We know of the many Liberal government scandals. However, it is the general hint of corruption that most seriously erodes public confidence in the system.

Someone once said that money is the mother's milk of politics. Modern elections are expensive affairs. Spending by candidates in Canada comes nowhere close to the spending in American elections. With advertising, signs, literature, polling, et cetera, it is lots of money. Most candidates running for federal Parliament spend in the range of $40,000 to $70,000 to get elected. Raising this money has undoubtedly contributed to the growing cynicism about political life.

Regulating party and election financing is essential to maintaining public confidence in the democratic process. Canadians suspect that money not only dominates elections but also increasingly corrupts our electoral system. They look at the thousands upon thousands of dollars donated each year by large corporations supposedly because these companies wish to support democracy. They have good reason to be suspicious. Even the Prime Minister said last month in the Toronto Star that, “There is a perception that money can unduly influence the political process”.

A recent study revealed that of the top 25 federal government contractors 17 are major donors to the federal Liberal Party. That is almost 70%. Moreover, these companies donate to the Liberal Party versus all other political parties in the House at a ratio of 6 to 1. At the candidate level, it is dangerous because the ratio is 30 to 1. No wonder the Liberal Party president called the concept “Dumb as a sack full of hammers”.

Major donors are not at all representative of the Canadian economy. Rather, almost uniformly, they tend to be government contractors, regulated industries and companies seeking changes from the government. For example, in 2001 Bombardier made the largest single donation of $142,503 to the Liberals, and Bombardier was also the second largest federal contractor in 2001 with a total of more than $117 million in contracts. Was it a coincidence? I am not sure, but it was a good investment. It invested in the government party and received contracts worth $117 million in this case.

Some time ago, when I used to be the CIDA critic for the official opposition, I analyzed the data and found out that the investment in the form of a political donation to a political party, which was the government in this case, was a very good investment with huge returns.

If the list of donors were truly representative of the Canadian economy we would expect to see some major retailers, software companies or restaurant chains, but they do not show up on the donors list. Donations instead come from financial institutions, transportation companies, communication or media industries. Most of which are federally regulated businesses.

The Prime Minister is determined to pass Bill C-24, even having gone so far as to threaten an election over the bill because of the rebels in his caucus. Why, after 10 years as the head of government, has he finally become so passionate over campaign finance reform? The Prime Minister's sudden conversion probably has everything to do with cleaning up the image of his government, for so long plagued with scandal after scandal, and with every suggestion of corruption, fraud, cronyism, favouritism and helping Liberal friends. That is the sole reason why the Prime Minister is passionate in having Bill C-24 passed. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the idea is good but the government is turning it into a bad law.

A recent poll by the Liberals' own pollster suggested 45% of the public thought them corrupt. The Prime Minister should be restoring transparency and accountability to the political process. This bill is too little, too late.

Currently we are considering Motion No. 12. We will not support Motion No. 12. It deals with riding associations, referred to as electoral districts, and the information they must transfer to the Chief Electoral Officer and the ability of an association to transfer funds et cetera. However, in proposed section 71(1) it states that the riding associations of a political party “may” provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the information. It is an option. Some associations may or may not. The problem is not resolved and therefore, I will be opposing the motion.

The Prime Minister is wrong to rush through this legislation. There should have been a genuine national debate on party financing.

Again, Bill C-24 would fail to stop the awarding of government contracts, especially untendered contracts, loans and grants to supporters of the governing party that is in power. It would only make it difficult to establish a link.

It would not correct the 50 candidate rule. It would not end the practice of making patronage appointments to fill returning officer positions based on the Prime Minister's recommendation and not on merit. And there are many other issues.

This is a good idea. The government is yielding to the pressure from members of the Canadian Alliance who have spoken to this many times, as did they when it was the Reform Party.

I will be oppose Motion No. 12 in the vote

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, the Bloc and I support the amendment moved at this stage to reinstate section 71, which was included in the original version of Bill C-24 and that was, for reasons I do not know but find strange, was deleted at the report stage.

These reasons seem strange because I know the effect of Bill C-24 in its original form and when it was reintroduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

This actually allows me to point out that Mr. Kingsley himself had, on several occasions, mentioned the loophole with regard to disclosing donations and allowing riding associations to create funds and transfer them during an election, without further ado, to a candidate.

There is no need to point out that such funds can contain significant sums, and that section 71 provided for such funds. I will say it again, this amendment was not drafted. It is an amendment that allows reinstatement of an item that seems to have been omitted from the committee's report.

At the report stage, this bill allows for improved—and I am going to repeat what has already been said—honesty in elections and democratic life, as well as improved morality.

I hope that the hon. Alliance member for Saanich—Gulf Islands will hear or read that I think he is very wrong when he says that we cannot legislate integrity—that is my own translation—or that we cannot make a law that will cause people to be honest.

We can, through legislation and with fairness, help human beings be more honest. The first laws in any country are the ones to prevent theft, and if people steal, they will be punished.

I am very glad that Canada is getting out of the field of political party financing. Fattening election funds with corporate donations has created a situation in which companies—at occasions such as $200, $500, $1,000 or $2,000-a-plate dinners—could take advantage of the tax laws to get the taxpayers to pay for their election donations. No one has ever denied that.

From now on, we will know that when a party is elected with x votes, it will get $1.75 per vote; now it is clear and the same rule applies to everyone. That makes it possible for the citizens to know that their representative—whom they often do not think of as their representative—has not been bought. It is very serious. This bill will make it possible to ensure not only fairness, but also integrity in political party financing.

I attended a session of the Council of Europe on political party financing as an observer for Canada. I can say that legislation such as there is in Quebec was held up as a model. I know that Manitoba has also recently enacted strict legislation. My reference to this meeting is in response to the member's comment that too much money is going to political parties. One thing was made clear at that meeting: in today's world, the electronic media are necessary if we are to reach people. As well, there must be an assurance that all parties receive a fair and equitable share of free air time, and advertising must be allowed. There may be differences in legislation, but advertising is one powerful way of getting to people, and it must be allowed. It must of course be limited and controlled.

That said, when we say, “If corporate financing is not what is wanted, then we must settle for private donations of $5 or $10, and so on”, this is delusional thinking. What we want is to create conditions for direct public contributions, as well as indirect contributions through tax money.

This is something that is already known about and I am sure it is supported. When the public votes for a party, they are the ones who decide that is where the $1.75 will go.

So corporate funding will become a thing of the past. As a result, democracy, as far as the relationship between the voters, the political parties, and the candidates is concerned, will be vastly improved. I am pleased that the Government of Canada is at last deciding to take the route Quebec opted for in 1977, and Manitoba just recently.

Our colleagues who are expressing such outrage about this will also find that this way of doing things will bring them closer to their constituents, without any doubt.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a number of my colleagues argue that this legislation should be delayed so that they can consult with their constituents and their political parties.

Members will probably recall that this is not a new issue that has been brought to the attention of the House or a committee of Parliament. In fact, it has been years since the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, called on Parliament to take action on this issue and to introduce legislation that to a large extent reflects what is in this bill.

The government has shown leadership by taking action in response to the Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer is entrusted by Parliament and the public at large to ensure that elections in Canada are transparent and fair and to ensure that our society is well served by a parliamentary system that has democratic elections. To a large extent this is not a new issue before Parliament.

Another point some of my colleagues have raised has to do with the notion of whether or not we should subsidize political parties. I am sure my colleagues are not suggesting that the government or the House should abolish the subsidy system that is already in place. We subsidize political parties after every election to the tune of about 22.5%. As well there is the 50% rebate that goes to individual candidates if they receive 15% support in their respective constituencies.

I am sure my colleagues are not suggesting that we do away with that. If my colleagues are not suggesting that, then what we are dealing with here is an increase in the percentage of the subsidy from 22% to the level the government is proposing, which is 50%. Where is the problem? The problem is we really do not know how to proceed with some of my colleagues on the opposite side. They were members of the committee that dealt extensively with the issue.

Members will recall that the bill was introduced on January 29, 2003. Today is June 10. The committee dealt with this bill for a number of months. About 14 hours and 50 minutes were spent on second reading alone, on February 11, 12, 17, 18 and 20. Bill C-24 was approved at second reading by the House on March 18, 2003.

The bill then went to committee. The committee held in excess of 11 days of public hearings with in excess of 37 witnesses and it spent four days on clause-by-clause study, for a total of 15 days. Bill C-24 came back on June 6 for the House to deal with it.

It is not a secret that my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance do not want to support the bill. They are on the public record as stating that they do not want this legislation to receive third reading.

All the complaints about time allocation and the fact that the government is attempting to pass a bill before the recess are only excuses. At the end of the day it does not matter how much time is given to my Alliance colleagues. We could give them the whole summer. If their intentions are such that they do not want to support the bill at third reading, it is irrelevant whether or not time allocation is used.

Members know full well that at some point decisions have to be made. This legislation has been before Parliament for close to six months. There has been plenty of time for each and every member of Parliament to consult with his or her constituents, riding association or political party. There has been ample time for them to bring forward their concerns and recommendations to the committee or the House. In my view, any extra time would not be time well spent. It would be a waste of time. That is why it is absolutely imperative for the House to deal with this issue as quickly as possible.

Since the bill came back to the House we have spent in excess of five hours at report stage. As a result, the House leader served notice of time allocation. We have to get on with the program. We have to move forward. We have to get our ducks in line so we can move collectively as a team. Canadians want us to take action. Many of my constituents have told me that they want Parliament to deal with this issue as quickly as possible.

Some of my colleagues have raised the issue of American elections and the difference between somebody running for congress and somebody running for Parliament. We have a spending limit in Canada of close to $70,000 whereas south of the border they can spend millions of dollars to run for political office.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-24. I think this is an incredibly important bill that is before Parliament and I cannot believe how bad it is. I am amazed that after the 40 years the Prime Minister has spent here now he suddenly believes we have to try to legislate integrity somehow.

I know the government is actually trying to limit corporate and union political donations. That is not a bad idea in itself. I can see some merit in that. But I do not really believe that is what this is all about. I actually believe this is about sending taxpayers' money to political parties and just making it too easy.

I am absolutely and adamantly opposed to the bill and I want people to understand it. I think this could be a major issue in an election; I think it is that bad. I agree with my colleague from North Vancouver that this is a matter we are going to hear about in the coming years. We are going to be looking at inquiries and people are going to be asking how we blew $100 million and saying there was no accountability. It is going to come off the rails.

I want to point out how our electoral system works now, before Bill C-24. Somebody who contributes $200 to my campaign gets a 75% rebate. They get $150 as a tax credit and I spend the $200 and get a 50% rebate, so suddenly it costs the taxpayer $250 for the $200 donation. If Mr. Smith donated $200 to my campaign, he would receive a $150 rebate from the government. I spend the $200 and I get a $100 rebate. Right now today it costs the taxpayer $250 for a $200 donation.

Under one aspect of Bill C-24 there is an increase in the amount of the rebate. It would actually increase the base amount to $400 for the 75% rebate. I believe this is fundamentally wrong. I do not disagree that we should change our electoral financing. I believe we should be bringing it in line with every other charitable organization. When we donate to a charity we can deduct it from taxable income. There is a percentage, but it is not a lot.

Why should we be any different from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the cancer institute or all of these other charities? Why should it cost the taxpayer 125% for every dollar or every thousand dollars donated to individuals and political campaigns? I think this is fundamentally wrong.

Now let us look at what Bill C-24 would do. When it was originally brought forward, it stated that $1.50 would go to political parties for every vote they received in the previous election. That was not enough, as we know. We heard that on the government benches the Liberals were violently fighting this. They were opposed. The Prime Minister was having difficulty getting even his own caucus to agree on it. There were threats of an election being called.

So what has he done? He has given them a signing bonus, if we can imagine. Not only are the Liberals going to start giving political parties taxpayers' money, they are giving them a signing bonus. Again I disagree. They are increasing it from $1.50 to $1.75 and then there is the real signing bonus. This was supposed to have been paid in quarterly instalments throughout the year, but when this comes into force next January there will be a one year lump sum right up front in anticipation of an election. Of course we do not know that. That will probably be up to the heir apparent, of course, the member for LaSalle—Émard.

I am absolutely opposed to this. I have had some conversations with some of the members opposite and here is their logic. We have to try to follow it through. It just makes no sense. They said there is a perception out there that corporations and unions have too much influence. The word here is perception. Of course they do not; they are not doing anything wrong. Again I will come back to the point that we cannot legislate integrity: we have it or we do not. They said that they have to fix this perception. How is that done by forcing the taxpayer to pay for political parties? It just cannot be done.

Again let me come back to their logic. When I spoke to them, they asked if it was fair for union members or shareholders of a corporation to have their money donated to a political party. Either there is a company that they are shareholders of or they are members of a union and pay union dues. Is it fair for the directors of a company or the union bosses to donate to a political party with which they may not agree? We may have shares in a company that gives money to one party and we may disagree. They said that is wrong and that is why they are trying to limit union and corporate donations.

If we follow that logic, who are the shareholders of the public purse? Of course it is the taxpayers, but suddenly we are going to force the taxpayers to fund every single political party, although that last part is not true. It is only the parties that received a certain number of votes in the last election, and they would receive $1.75 for each vote.

It does freeze out any new parties that want to get involved in politics, of course, because they would not have any votes, as it would have been with the Reform Party of Canada. Back in the late 1980s, Preston Manning saw this vision, saw this need and wanted to reform Parliament. He created a movement and it grew overnight. This scheme protects the status quo and it gives the largest share of the pie to the government in power, which makes it even more difficult.

Again, it is so wrong to give $100 million or $125 million a year of taxpayers' money to political parties. If people believe in a cause, they should be able to donate $1,000 or $2,500. Let them donate it. If one believes in a cause, then one should go out to get those individual donations. We should not stuff it down the taxpayers' throats. We should not make them pay for it. It is wrong.

I do not disagree that we need to reform electoral financing, but again I would advocate that it be on a par with charitable organizations, not what we have here today. Under the new changes, for every vote a party got in the last election it would get $1.75. That would go to the national party. For the individuals who ran in the last election, the limit would be increased from $200 to $400 and the donor would get a 75% rebate. Let us look at what that would do. Under Bill C-24, if Mr. Smith donates $400 he gets a $300 rebate. Then I take that $400 and spend it and I get a $200 rebate. I get a 50% rebate. In fact, I am told it might even be going to 60%, although I am not positive about that, which would make it even worse. The point is that then it would cost the taxpayer $500 for every $400 donated. It is wrong. We should be going the other way and not getting our hands in the cookie jar, not digging deeper into the public coffers.

This notion that possibly we can legislate integrity is so flawed. It is so wrong. We should all be standing up and opposing this for that very reason. Perception is reality, so if they say there is a perception out there that the unions and the corporations have too much influence and that has to be fixed, it is probably true, they probably do have too much power, and the companies that give the $50,000 donations probably have been influencing the government.

I would encourage all members not to force taxpayers to fund political parties. There are far better uses for $125 million each year, such as health care. The list goes on and on. Again I would ask all members to reconsider this very flawed piece of legislation, probably the worst piece of legislation. If they do pass this bill, I have no doubt we will be doing study after study in the years to come as to why this was such a terrible waste of taxpayers' money.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my comments on the motion moved by the member for Winnipeg Centre with a quote from Winston Churchill that should get us thinking. He said, “Democracy is the worst system devised by the wit of man, except for all the others”.

Obviously this quote may seem somewhat strange when presented like this. The democratic system is often criticized and sometimes we stretch it and try to make everyone see our point of view. However, with these words, Churchill hoped to convey his profound respect for democracy in comparison to other systems, be it communism or the totalitarian dictatorships that existed in Germany and Italy at the time Churchill was Prime Minister of Great Britain

The purpose of Bill C-24 is to improve the democratic system in which we live. Under the current system, which Bill C-24 would modify, certain privileges were granted to people who made significant contributions to Canadian political parties.

Yesterday, I said that Quebec had passed legislation on the funding of political parties in 1977. We support the bill before us, but we feel there are still more improvements that could be made, such as the fact that businesses are allowed to contribute to parties' election funds. While the limits have been reduced, I think we need to make it so that only people who are eligible to vote have the right to contribute to political parties.

Earlier, the Canadian Alliance was talking about unions. Obviously, neither unions, nor businesses nor corporations have the right to vote. As a result, unions, businesses and corporations should not be able to make an active contribution to political party financing.

I would like to come back to the motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. I think my hon. friend from the Canadian Alliance, speaking a short while ago, did not understand the meaning of the motion, which reads:

—as enacted by this Act, the registered association of a political party that is already registered on the coming into force of this section may provide the Chief Electoral Officer—

Certainly I was brought up short by the words “may provide”. At first I thought it should have read “must provide”. However, when one reads the motion closely and analyses it seriously, one sees in paragraph 2:

No registered association of a political party that is already registered on the coming into force of this section shall transfer to a registered party... any contributions that were received by the registered association during the period mentioned in paragraph (1)(a)—

This means that the purpose of the motion is to prevent—if I have correctly understood the sense of the motion by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre—any money held in trust by these associations from being used illicitly by these associations or used “under the table” by the parties, so as to ensure the election or nomination of a particular person.

Therefore, I will support the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, with whom I am in agreement now, even though I had some doubts at first.

I would like to return to Bill C-24 as a whole. There is another element which I think is not adequate and which we perhaps ought to have considered further. The federal government should have made a commitment to respect the laws of the provinces and Quebec. In Quebec during the 1995 referendum, we had a political party financing act and an act concerning the financing of referendums, dealing with the way the two sides were to be funded.

The fact remains that the federal government invested a lot of money; in the end, it violated Quebec's legislation because it claimed to be above the laws of one province, of Quebec.

The federal government should have made a commitment in this bill to harmonize its laws with those of Quebec, and to respect provincial legislation on political party financing or on referendum campaigns, so as not to interfere in the democratic process.

I also wanted to come back to what I was saying earlier about democracy and involving citizens. Last night, we watched the election results come in from New Brunswick, which were, incidentally, very close. As Premier elect Bernard Lord—whom I would like to congratulate, by the way—said, it was as interesting to watch as the final game of the Stanley Cup playoffs. It took quite some time before we found out who would form the government, and even today, there are still some doubts because of the recount.

I watched the reports on television and noticed that many volunteers participated in the electoral process, yet the voter turnout was lower. There was roughly a 69.1% or 69.7% participation rate, which is 5% to 6% lower than the previous election. The same thing happened during the last federal election and we see this happening throughout the country.

There is a reason for this dissatisfaction with politics. People are less involved in political parties and are therefore not canvassed by them as much, since politicians, including those at the federal level—where dissatisfaction is greatest—had no need to appeal to the voters for campaign funds.

It is essential that public financing become the focus of Bill C-24 and that we make it a long term goal. The only way to convince people to adopt our view is to go out and speak to them, to get them involved in the election process. A person first has to belong to a political party, then attend conventions, nomination meetings for instance, and then, finally, run in an election.

If people are to participate in this process, it is clear that we have to seek them out, win them over and spread the message. However, if, as is the case in several countries, we only use information media or, because we have the money to do so, increasingly rely on using advertising, sending out information and so on, we will not convince anyone to participate in the democratic process. There is only one true way to convince someone to participate in the democratic process and that is to ask him to participate to the best of his intellectual and financial abilities.

Even though we agree with Bill C-24, it will need to be improved over the years and at some point we will have to stop appealing to companies, which we have already stopped doing in Quebec. I would like only those who are entitled to vote to be able to contribute money to the parties, and not the companies, unions or any other corporation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

The member says that is not allowed, and he is absolutely correct. In today's system we have, under the electoral act, rules regarding how much someone can spend on an election. It is roughly equated to about one and a half first class mailings per eligible elector.

I believe I have 65,000 eligible voters in my riding. If we were to multiply that by one and a half first class mailings, we would get the spending limit for my riding. In fact, the spending limit in an election for my riding was just over $60,000. Therefore there is a basis for how those are determined. There are some adjustments for ridings that have geographic expanses which are exceptional or have large populations, et cetera, but in the main that is the basis.

One can appreciate now that if a candidate in an average riding, such as my own, were limited to spending $65,000, it would still be a lot of money. It would be very difficult for someone who did not have money of his or her own or did not have the extensive contacts to raise that kind of money to be competitive with someone who could raise $65,000.

Ergo, in our system today, before this bill, we have a partially subsidized, publicly financed electoral system that helps to ensure that ordinary Canadians of ordinary means have an opportunity to seek public office and in fact to be competitive in an electoral race because of the limits that are set.

Under the current rules, any candidate, whether the candidate wins or loses, who gets at least 15% of the votes in an election is entitled to a reimbursement of 50% of the eligible expenses that he or she actually incurred.

In the last election I spent approximately $40,000. As a consequence, I was eligible to receive and did receive a subsidy from the chief electoral officer of $20,000. However, as part of the rules of our party, half of that money goes to the national party to support the expenditures of a nationwide campaign for all the advertising, all the expenses of a leader's tour and all the other attendant costs of running in a general election. This is part of the rules that we operate under but it means that out of the $40,000 I actually spent, $10,000 was given to me by the Government of Canada through our current system and $10,000 went to my party, but that was half of the expenses.

On top of that, during the off election years we run fundraisers and we try to raise money to support ourselves, not only for administrative costs in non-election years but to save up some money so that when an election is called we can spend enough money to properly inform our electors about who we are, about those who have been elected and what they have done as elected representatives, as well as to outline for the electorate the platform of the party for which one is running. It is a very important process and the way we do it is through the public assistance that we have available.

Under Bill C-24 an adjustment would be made to that 50% reimbursement. It would go up to 60% as a transitional measure. However Canadians should understand that today the Government of Canada is basically subsidizing electoral expenses by 50%. In addition, in off election years those who contribute money are also eligible for refundable tax credits from the federal government through the electoral act. For instance, the electoral act permits a donor of $100 to receive a tax credit of $75.

There is a further subsidy of public money for the electoral process and this is because we are supporting a democratic process, a process under which all Canadians, regardless of means, would have an opportunity to seek public office and to run a competitive campaign.

Members will know that all Canadians who wish to seek public office can in fact get substantial support from public moneys in order to run in campaigns, and that their contribution to raising additional dollars, along with their riding association, is much less than half of the actual costs that they will incur.

It is important that members and the public understand that we do have a publicly financed, heavily subsidized electoral system in Canada to support this democratic process.

Members have talked about shifting away from the issue of corporations and the concern about corporations having undue influence over people in elected office. I think that is a legitimate concern but, as I said earlier, this one change in itself would not change public perception. We will continue to work on this through the implementation of further enhancements to an ethics package guiding those in elected office, not only cabinet ministers but all members.

I think this is a good step forward in terms of enhancing what I believe to be a publicly funded, democratic electoral process for which Canadians should all be proud.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 12 in Group No. 3 of Bill C-24 at report stage basically requires that the electoral district associations or, as some people refer to them, riding or constituency associations, within six months after being registered pursuant to this act would provide a statement of contributions received since the last general election and before the bill comes into force, including the name and address of each contributor who made contributions of more than $200 to the registered association.

That is a valid requirement and could be put in the bill but it already is a matter of public record. The member will know that all contributions in excess of $200 where there are receipts issued are already a matter of public record each and every year and are available for the public to see.

It is not just with regard to contributions raised during election periods. In fact, riding associations do take in contributions to help with their administrative costs, as well as to pay for levies against them from the main party for the administrative support that is provided. Indeed, in my own party, all the receipting of donations is done by the central party. They are audited and all the information is provided through the offices of the chief electoral officer for the public to see.

On that basis, I do not have a problem with the motion. It is somewhat redundant but it somehow suggests that this is information that is not available and I wanted to make sure members knew that it is in fact available each and every year to all Canadians. That is part of the transparency of our existing system.

Since we are talking about riding associations, Bill C-24 is a very important bill in terms of the impact it would have on the overall process of financing the electoral activities in Canada. When I spoke yesterday to the bill, I compared it to the United States where basically people can spend millions of dollars in support of their candidacies for congress or the senate. In fact, just today in the news it was confirmed that Senator Hillary Clinton actually raised and spent $30 million to become a senator in the United States.

One can imagine what would happen in Canada to the public perception of people in elected office if they raised, for instance, $1 million and spent it to get elected, if they could. What would be the reaction of Canadians? Obviously they would be outraged because the job is not worth $1 million.

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

I hear members saying, “shame”. It is a shame when we cannot even have three hours of debate before the minister jumps to his feet and moves time allocation. It is as if he is addicted to closing down debate in this place. He has become so addicted to this closing down that he hardly has enough time to go from one fix to the next. I am beginning to wonder whether he will move time allocation as new bills are introduced to the House. A new bill will come into the House tomorrow to do with fisheries. I suppose the minister will stand and move time allocation as soon as it is tabled. It is starting to get ridiculous.

I want to ask the minister, what is the rush? What is the emergency?

The minister claimed he could not get all party agreement to move the bill through promptly. It does not come into effect until January 1, 2004. We could have spent the summer, having an opportunity to talk with our riding associations and parties about the impact of the bill, and there would have been nothing wrong with continuing the debate in the fall.

There is no excuse for having moved time allocation on the bill. It is inexcusable and it is ridiculous that it was moved after only three hours of debate.

I think the real reason is to gag the opposition because the Canadian public is starting to notice that the money to pay for this is coming out of its pockets. The minister has a huge shovel into the trough over at the treasury, shovelling money out of the treasury and into Liberal coffers.

Before I move to the detail of the NDP's amendment, I would like to mention what I think is a bit of hypocrisy which comes from the NDP about political donations. NDP members are constantly railing against corporate donations to political parties and the terrible influence that corporations have on the political process because of the size of the corporate donations. They wanted it to be zero because they were so worried about it.

It is almost as if the NDP has its own private trust funds in the unions of the country. I bet it is not widely and publicly known that, for example, in the year 2000 the NDP received: from the Canadian Labour Congress, $683,947; from the CAW, $452,177; from the USWA, $254,416; and from UFCW, $196,670.

Every single one of those donations was bigger than what any corporation gave to any political party in the country. How hypocritical of the NDP members to stand in this place and criticize corporations when they are beholden to groups like that to the tune of $683,000.

Do we honestly think the Canadian Labour Congress does not expect anything for that size of a donation to the NDP? How can that party make logical and reasonable decisions about legislation in this place when it is so reliant on that influx of money from unions?

I suspect we will not see NDP members talk any more about those numbers, and I bet the unions will not lower their union dues to their members to make up for the savings they will have from the passage of the bill. I think the real reason the NDP members want to see this bill go through is so these millions of dollars, which they are receiving from the unions, can be kept in union coffers while the taxpayers top up the NDP coffers.

Normally it is my job to attack the government. I am sorry for that sideways movement for a moment, but I thought it was important to get that stuff on the record.

In terms of the amendment that the NDP has proposed in Group No. 3, the key word in the amendment is that electoral district associations “may” report the information contained in that amendment. That is the key word that they “may”. For that reason we feel the amendment is unnecessary because there is nothing to stop riding associations from voluntarily doing these reports in any event. Therefore what is the point or putting a clause in a bill which says that the riding associations can do what they already do?

Our position on the amendment is that it is unnecessary. We understand the reason why the NDP brought it to the floor, and it is good that we have a chance to discuss it. However it is not an amendment that we can support.

For those who are not familiar with the bill, I should run through some of the things electoral district associations will have to report under Bill C-24.

Proposed Bill C-24 will require riding associations, or electoral districts as we call them now, to provide Elections Canada with a permanent operating address, the names and addresses of executive officers, the auditor and the financial agent for the registered electoral district. The auditor and financial agent will need to sign their consent to act in those positions and, if signed, approval by the leader of the party for registration of the electoral district association will also have to be submitted to the chief electoral officer.

As riding associations have typically relied on volunteers to fill executive positions and to administer the affairs of the electoral district association, it is our opinion that these onerous new requirements will make it impossible for some riding associations to attract enough volunteers to do the work that will be required. That is a major flaw in this bill.

The minister has argued vociferously that there is no difference between the requirements in this bill and the requirements in Ontario under the provincial legislation. Frankly, there is a big difference between administering this type of thing across the entire country as opposed to the much smaller riding associations in a place like Ontario.

In addition to registering and providing all the information I have mentioned, there will be annual financial reporting and disclosure by electoral district associations. Within six months after registration, they will have to file a statement with Elections Canada listing assets and liabilities, including a surplus of deficit. In addition, a report will have to be made by the auditor stating whether or not the statement is fair in its representation of the riding's financial position.

Finally, a declaration will have to be made by the financial agent that the statement is complete and accurate.

As I mentioned, the bill is presently set to come into effect on January 1, 2004, and electoral district associations will have to provide Elections Canada with a list of their assets and liabilities as of that date. The basis for the amendment brought by the NDP is to have the details of where the money came from prior to January 1, 2004 revealed at that time if a riding association so wishes.

As I mentioned, they can do that anyway so this amendment is kind of redundant. However we understand what the NDP is trying to get at, and that is the trust funds held by, we believe, some of the members in this place. I am not sure I would call it money laundering. Perhaps to a degree we agree with the government that it is an opportunity to have this money come out of the closet and be put into riding associations where from this point on we will be able to see it and monitor it.

There are a fair amount of complex rules in terms of what riding associations have to do after the bill comes into effect. Whilst the chief electoral officer did not feel that it would cost a tremendous amount of money to get this up and running and that training would be provided across the country, I have the feeling this will be one of those situations, a little like the gun registry. We will have an initial estimate of how much it will cost to get it up and running and then we will see it double, or triple or quadruple in cost, as Elections Canada increases the size of its bureaucracy and starts rolling this program out across the country. I think we are in for a big surprise about how much this whole thing will cost us. It is will not be just $1.75 per voter. We will find this rolling along up to $3 and $4 and so on.

I am almost out of time on this segment so I would like to close by saying this. If a survey were held across this country about Canadians' attitudes to having to pay for this bill, the $1.75 per vote cast, I suggest we would find that 95% or 96% or more of Canadians would object strongly to the government taking money out of their pockets to fund the day to day operations of political parties. What it basically amounts to is a tax on voting. For every person who goes out to vote, that individual will know that it just cost $1.75 for the privilege of doing so. What an outrageous situation we have created where it will cost people a $1.75 to vote. What is more, they do not have control of where the money goes.

It is a dreadful bill and I sincerely hope members would vote against it. Certainly the Canadian Alliance will.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to the NDP amendment to Bill C-24. Just before I do that, it is incumbent upon me to mention that the government has moved time allocation, which is the 84th or 85th time that it has done that to us.

The unusual situation in this case was that we had not even had three hours of debate in the House and the minister was on his feet moving time allocation on this bill.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what we are attempting to do here, as you so eloquently read into the record, is to reinstate a clause that was deliberately deleted from the proposed bill when we were debating clause by clause last week, we being the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The clause that was deleted in its entirety was clause 71, which was, we believe, placed there initially to deal with transitional provisions for this act to come into force. It dealt with contributions received by the registered association since the last general election in November 2000, and prior to the coming into force of the Bill C-24 amendments to the election financing act and the Income Tax Act.

It proposed to obtain the amounts of money donated by individuals, businesses, commercial organizations, governments, trade unions, corporations and unincorporated organizations that donated over $200, as well as the total amount they donated.

It demanded, in the case of a numbered company, for example, the name of the chief executive officer of that company or the president. It warned or cautioned registered associations of all parties that transferring money was illegal unless it had filed a report, and that a registered association was in contravention if it had not filed that report and was guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a $2,000 fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both.

The proposed amendments were placed there to simplify reporting requirements for candidates and registered parties.

Under the act, this clause would require that candidates and parties must report details of contributions received through a constituency association, or what is referred to in this act as an electoral district association.

All of this was in clause 71 to ensure that the information concerning contributions flowing through a constituency association would be accounted for. It preserved the status quo by continuing to require a registered constituency association to provide information about contributions, where those contributions came from that were forwarded on to candidates and the party that the association gathered in the period between the most recent election in the riding and the coming into force of the act. As I said before, it was provisional.

The transition provision would have ensured that Elections Canada would continue to receive the information concerning contributions that flow from an association to a party or a candidate and that the information would not be lost in switching from one set of reporting requirements to another.

As indicated, penalties and punishment were laid out for failure to provide the information requested, and then, out of the blue, the recommendation from the member for Halifax West was to drop clause 71 in its entirety. The question that must be asked is, why?

I would say, in response to that question, and it is really rather pathetic, that the government members opposite were so embarrassed by it that they did not really want to talk about it. I believe on good grounds that it was deleted because the Liberals decided they did not want to embarrass a few of their colleagues who have been accepting money in trust, some to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars. I think it is a matter of public record that the member for Trinity—Spadina has a trust fund in excess of $260,000. They do not want that revealed and they do not want to have that money reported in any way, shape or form.

If clause 71 had remained, the Liberals with trust funds would have to disclose the sources of the money before they could be rolled into the constituency association account. By deleting the clause, the money can now be transferred any time between now and December 31, 2003, the day before the legislation would come into full force and effect, without having to disclose the source. It is, purely and simply, money laundering and the government is making it perfectly legal by hoisting this particular clause 71.

The president of the Liberal Party, Mr. LeDrew, has said that this legislation is as dumb as a bag of hammers. I think Mr. LeDrew should have taken the blame, as the president of the national Liberal Party, for not stopping this practice several years ago.

It seems to us that it is only a few members, and I want to emphasize it is certainly not all members, on that side of the House who are guilty of setting up and having established these trust funds. The money is not circulated through. There is no percentage that goes to the Liberal Party of Canada, and the Liberal Party has just chosen to ignore this over the years. Now all of a sudden they are going to be embarrassed by it and have decided that they better deep-six clause 71 so they will never have to report the sources of the income. Leaving clause 71 intact would have, at a minimum, allowed constituents to learn the source of their donors since November 2000, the date of the last general election.

All we are doing is requesting that section 71 be reinstated in its entirety to prevent those few MPs with trust funds to escape the disclosure provisions.

The Prime Minister is on record as saying that big money influences politics. He should follow through and insist that there be full disclosure on this bill coming into effect by reinstating clause 71.

It is true, under other terms of the changes to the election financing act, that trust funds will no longer go undetected after December 31, and that obviously is a good thing. What we are requesting is that politicians who have engaged in this questionable practice be required, under the law that is now coming into effect, to publish their donors list and the amounts received since that last general election. That provision was in the bill until last week. Then it was deleted. In our opinion, it is unconscionable that this has been done and it should be reinstated immediately.

There is no valid reason why the vast majority of Liberal MPs do not want to see the same basic transparency for all MPs in this House. That, in the final analysis, is what Bill C-24 is all about.

Finally, if a member of Parliament with a trust fund at the moment is so embarrassed that he does not want to disclose his donors list, there is even a way out that is provided for in clause 71.

If an association did not wish to provide the basic information about contributors, clause 71 provided that it could elect to spend the contribution in some other way than transferring it to a candidate or a riding association. I assume that means it could, for example, give the money to the victims of SARS in Toronto, or the beef industry in western Canada, or the homeless, or the EI.

There is absolutely no excuse that these trust funds should not be reported. Unfortunately, as a result of the clause by clause provisions that were voted on last week, that can only happen if clause 71 is reinstated.

In conclusion, this is money laundering, pure and simple. We want to let the sunshine in on all aspects of the election financing act. In my opinion what has happened on clause 71, is it taints what we are trying to do in terms of going forward on this legislation. The purpose of this report stage amendment is to reinsert clause 71. I urge all members of the House to support it.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-24 be amended by adding after line 42 on page 101 the following new clause:

“71. (1) Within six months after becoming registered under Division 1.1 of Part 18 of the Canada Elections Act, as enacted by this Act, the registered association of a political party that is already registered on the coming into force of this section may provide the Chief Electoral Officer, in addition to the documents required by section 403.05 of that Act, with a report including

(a) a statement of contributions received by the registered association since the last general election and before the coming into force of this section from the following classes of contributor: individuals, businesses, commercial organizations, governments, trade unions, corporations without share capital other than trade unions, and unincorporated organizations or associations other than trade unions;

(b) the number of contributors in each class listed in paragraph (a);

(c) the name and address of each contributor in a class listed in paragraph (a) who made contributions of a total amount of more than $200 to the registered association, and that total amount; and

(d) in the case of a numbered company that is a contributor referred to in paragraph (c), the name of the chief executive officer or president of that company.

(2) No registered association of a political party that is already registered on the coming into force of this section shall transfer to a registered party, another registered association or a candidate any contributions that were received by the registered association during the period mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) unless it has filed the report under subsection (1).

(3) A registered association that wilfully contravenes subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and is liable

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $2,000; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $5,000.

(4) This section ceases to have effect on the day that is five years after the day on which it comes into force.”

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for these few minutes to speak on a bill that will enable us to reform political financing. I would like to speak specifically about my support for Motion No. 11, which calls for a review of the impact of the legislation after the next election.

Canadians justifiably take great pride in their country. They are proud of its reputation for honesty and good government, which sets an example for many new democracies around the world.

This good reputation did not just pop up overnight, however. Rather, it is the result of hard work and sacrifice by ordinary Canadians who took a keen interest in the issues of the day, who got involved, who made a difference by their actions.

The Canadians of 2003 are not much different from their predecessors. They too want to play an active part in bringing about change, but to do so they need to know how the system works.

Political financing is an area in which Canadians are not fully informed. This was obvious when the Government House Leader consulted the experts, provincial leaders and ordinary Canadians on how the present system could be improved.

Many of them pointed out that Canadians did not have enough information on political financing. And they are not always happy about the information they do have. Canadians have the impression that corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, with their generous contributions, sometimes have undue influence over the political system. This is not correct, of course. But, as we all know, perceptions are important and every effort must be made to ensure that Canadians have complete faith in our democratic process.

There is no doubt that the best approach to correcting these misconceptions is for Canadians to be given as much information as possible on the donors, the recipients and the use to which funds are put. This means enforcing better rules for reporting and requiring all involved to declare funding. That is exactly what Bill C-24 proposes: enhanced transparency and tighter rules on reporting.

To begin with, the bill contains some measures aimed at opening up the system, making it more transparent, clarifying unclear points. This makes a lot of sense, since the system is, after all, one of integrity, so why not let the public see what it is all about and allow it to draw its own conclusions?

At the present time, only candidates and political parties have to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a report of the contributions received and their sources. The rules are patently incomplete, since some important participants are not included in this at all.

To correct this, the bill will extend disclosure requirements to all participants in the electoral process, namely, leadership and nomination contestants, as well as political parties and electoral district associations. And all political participants will be obliged to declare contributions over $200, along with the name and address of the individual or organization making the contribution.

As of January 1, 2005, political parties will also be required to report quarterly on contributions received. In addition, when registering with the Chief Electoral Officer, leadership contestants will be required to declare contributions received, with sources, prior to the date of registration. And in each of the four weeks preceding the nomination convention, candidates must declare the contributions received and their source. Finally, six months after the conclusion of the leadership contest, the candidates must declare to the Chief Electoral Officer any additional contributions and expenditures.

Nomination contestants will also be required to disclose any donations received and their sources, along with expenditures incurred, during the four months following the nomination contest.

When it comes to changes in political funding rules, improved disclosure of contributions, expenditures and other factors cannot in itself boost public confidence.

In order to reduce the system's reliance on large donations from corporations, unions and the wealthy, the bill prohibits corporations and unions from making contributions; a limited exception allows them to contribute up to $1,000 to registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates.

The bill also provides heavy penalties for businesses and unions that try to get around this ban by asking employees and members to make contributions on their behalf. Finally, it caps contributions by individuals at $5,000 per year in response to concerns about the impact of major contributions.

To compensate for the insufficient funds that may result from commitments related to public financing measures, the bill would increase public support. As a result, eligible parties would receive a quarterly allowance of $1.75 per vote; the percentage of election expenses to be reimbursed to the parties would go from 50% to 60% for the next election alone; the definition of election expenses would be broadened to include polls; the election expense limit for parties would be increased; the candidates would also be entitled to a refund of their election expenses, which would go from 50% to 60%; and the minimum allowable expenses would be lowered to 10% so that a greater number of candidates could get a refund of their election expenses.

Furthermore, other measures would encourage more Canadians to contribute. Individual contributions eligible for tax credits of 75% would increase from $200 to $400, and the maximum tax credit for individual contributions would increase from $500 to $650.

In closing, I believe that passing this bill would contribute greatly to strengthening public confidence in political financing in Canada. This would reassure Canadians of the system's fundamental integrity, while providing a better idea of the funds received, the beneficiaries and how the money has been spent.

Furthermore, the bill would make a fundamental change to political party financing across Canada, which would reassure Canadians and the rest of the world that our political system and government are founded on, and will continue to be founded on, very strict ethical standards.

Clearly, everyone would be a winner. But I agree that it would be good to review the effect of these provisions after the next election.

For those reasons, I will support the motion, and I encourage the other members to do the same.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-24 and the amendments under consideration at this time.

Let me say at the outset that I will be speaking in support of Bill C-24, not just because I happen to be a Liberal and a member of the governing party. I support Bill C-24 because it is the kind of issue that I have felt strongly about for a good many years. I have felt for a good many years that it is time for the public to take a much wider financial participation in our democracy.

I want to say some congratulatory remarks to the government for bringing Bill C-24 before the House at this time. I think it is an idea whose time has come. When the bill is passed and becomes law and when the law has been enforced for some years, I think it will be a model for many other countries around the world to follow. I believe it is that progressive.

I also want to congratulate the Prime Minister. In the months leading up to his retirement toward the end of this year or the beginning of next year he could have just sat back and done nothing, but he has not done that. He has been very active. Evidence of that is bringing forward Bill C-24, which I think in political terms and in legislative terms is a very bold act. I think he deserves our congratulations. This is going to be a long-lasting legacy in his name.

The particular amendment before us would allow for a review roughly a year from now, after the next election, let us say, and I think that is a good amendment. The opportunity to look at something that we parliamentarians have done in the recent past and to assess and evaluate the efficacy and value of the legislation is a good direction to take. Certainly I will be supporting not only the legislation but this particular amendment allowing for that kind of review. I think it is a good amendment and a good decision to take.

Now I want to ask myself a question and provide the answer. Why do I support Bill C-24? I happen to believe, and I have felt this way for a long time, that elections are at the centre of our Canadian democracy. Democracy belongs to all of us and we all have to take responsibility for it. That includes paying for it. There is no other way. If we are going to take financial responsibility for our democracy, that means we are going to have to take on our responsibility as taxpayers and share in the financial support for our democracy.

On the one hand we Canadians cherish our democracy, which I think is one of the best models of democracy in the world. We have had it for almost 136 years and would never want to give it up. Yet I find it passing strange that on the other hand, a lot of Canadians seem content and happy to surrender some control of that democracy to corporations and unions to save us a little bit of money. I think that is a dubious saving, to say the least.

There is of course this perception that big money involved in the financing of election campaigns bears with it or carries with it too much influence. We know, despite arguments to the contrary, that there is really no smoking gun in support of this perception. Nevertheless it is there.

I do not think there is any doubt that when it comes to big contributions to political parties, political campaigns and political candidates, they do to some extent provide access. Sometimes that is all we need: access. We do not have to be a direct participant with our money in a decision or in a process leading up to the decision. What we need is access. What we need sometimes is just the opportunity to present our case. From then on good things may well happen, not always, but they may well happen.

For example, well-to-do people can go to some classy fundraisers and pay $200 to $600 or maybe even more than that. With that, they have an opportunity to meet certain important people, particularly prime ministers. That is access. They may bend an ear for only half a minute or a minute, but perhaps there is some value to that. We always hear about the famous golf tournaments. One buys into a golf tournament and has an opportunity for a few rounds of golf with a cabinet minister, a deputy minister or someone else important. That is the kind of access we are talking about. I think anything that will offset that kind of perception is all well and good.

I want to deal with a particular matter that I think I heard the previous speaker talk about: the concern of some people that the money coming from the taxpayer in support of election campaigns would go to parties, as if somehow or another the money would actually go into the pockets of political parties for the pleasure and enjoyment of political parties, or that the money would be used for their profit, let us say. I do not think that is true. I think the money goes through the parties and the operative word is “through”. The money goes through the parties to enable them to express themselves and to communicate their policies and messages to the electorate. That is what the money is for.

Parties that have those kinds of resources from taxpayers will be able to express themselves better and more clearly, without fear or favour, as it were. I support the notion of putting the money through the parties. The parties, we can be sure, will spend the money, every nickel of it. In fact, another aspect of this which I think is important, and which the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca mentioned, is keeping a lid on spending, or in other words keeping control of spending. That is one of the great things we have under Canadian law. There are rigid, tight controls on election spending, and that it is the way it should be.

I hope that we always will keep a very careful eye on this control of spending. It is very important. It is one thing to get wider public financial participation into the process, but it is equally important to keep a tight rein on spending. I hope we never let that go.

I know that some people are not comfortable with asking taxpayers to participate in this way, but there is simply no alternative. It is either public support or private support and I think it is time for us to go to a greater scale of public support. Right now, considering rebates and other things that we use, around 59% of election spending is borne by the public purse. Under Bill C-24, that may go as high as perhaps 89% or 90%.

This kind of legislation is not new. The Province of Quebec has had it for a good long while, for many years now. There is an aspect of it in New Brunswick. In fact, in New Brunswick I think they fork over about $1.80 a head. Of course the Province of Manitoba has it and I think the legislation was enacted in 2000. It was put to the test for the first time in the recent provincial election in Manitoba on June 3.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on an amendment to Bill C-24 put forth by the government House leader with which we agree.

However, let us take a look at the nuts and bolts of the bill as it pertains to the amendment and why we would like to see this issue revised and looked at a year from now. We agreed with the objective of Bill C-24. How do we limit public or private influence in public policy? How do we limit the ability of deep pockets to have influence on public policy, something we all agree has to be removed? Does the bill do that?

I would submit that Bill C-24 does not do that at all. The bill wants to ensure that corporations and individuals do not get special favour on public policy, but the government is unable to eliminate that. The fact of the matter is that the big money donations, the $100,000 and $50,000 donations, do not happen above board. Those are the donations that have access to change government policy and enable certain groups to have access to untendered government contracts. Therein lies the problem. The bill does not address that. The bill deals with preventing groups from donating more than $1,000 and individuals from donating more than $5,000. That is not where the big money comes from. That is not was causes the influence.

What creates the influence are those big moneys that are happening under the table. There is also the fact that contracts may or may not be untendered and the awarding of contracts, in fact, violate Treasury Board's own guidelines.

How can we address this? An interesting thing happened in Europe where this issue was addressed. The question that was asked was, how can we ensure that big money cannot influence public policy? One option that was proposed was called: publish what is paid. I would extend that to something about publishing what is received.

I would suggest and submit that the way to prevent private influence of public policy is to ensure that individuals who donate to a political party or to an individual cannot donate more than $5,000, otherwise they must ensure that those moneys will be made public every year. Not only that, the recipient of those moneys, or the party that receives those moneys, will also have to publish the donor and the amount that they received. That would eliminate private influence of public policy.

The second is the issue of government contracts. We saw with the Groupaction scandal millions of dollars of taxpayers' money being wasted on three contracts that were utterly useless. Those contracts were given to a company that was a large donor to the governing party. The problem is, how do we eliminate that? How do we ensure that contracts will be awarded on the basis of merit and that money will not be passed under the table in return for those lucrative government contracts that exist?

Two things must happen. First, Treasury Board guidelines must be followed, and second, contracts above a certain amount of money, say $25,000 or $50,000, must be put out to tender. That, in fact, is the law and should be applied.

There is quite a debate between members of the NDP and our party on the concept of whether the taxpayer should be on the lamb for funding political parties. My party and I would say, absolutely not, not through the taxpayers' purse. If we, as elected individuals, choose to run for elected office, or if we, as a political party, cannot get the moneys from the individuals in the public ourselves, then we should not be running for office and should not be elected. We would ask the public as individuals seeking elected office or as parties seeking to be elected. We would ask the public individually for support, but we should not obligate the taxpayer through the public purse for those moneys.

That is what the bill does. The people who are watching would be shocked to know that for every single vote a political party received in the last election, the taxpayer will be giving us $1.50 every single year. Where could that money be better spent? Could it not be better spent for MRIs, hospital beds or hiring nurses and physicians to ensure that people will get the health care they deserve? Is that not a better use of the taxpayers' money? Or is it better to give those moneys to a political institution?

We would submit that those moneys should be spent on priorities like health care, defence, education and the social programs on which people who are less fortunate rely on. That is a better use of taxpayers' money. Taxpayers should not be giving millions of dollars to political parties every single year. In our view that is not a good use of taxpayers' money.

The amendment by the government House leader is a good one because it proposes that the bill be reviewed in one year. We hope it will be dramatically changed if it is not changed during this period of time. It is completely unfair that a billionaire in Ottawa received millions of dollars from the Canadian taxpayer, from our government, for projects. Viewers out there would be shocked to know where their money is going.

There is something called a technology partnership Canada fund which has handed out close to $2 billion to the private sector. How much of that money has been repaid? A shocking $35 million. This is taxpayers' money. It is not money that somehow appears from the ether in the middle of nowhere. This money comes from hardworking Canadians who made $16,000, $20,000, $40,000 a year and who pay a lot of taxes which are being given to multi-billion dollar Canadian companies and only a fraction of those moneys are repaid. That is absolutely ridiculous.

More shocking is that the people who receive those moneys make donations to the government. We have a multi-billionaire with multi-billion dollar companies receiving taxpayers' money in the form of loans that more often than not are never paid back to the government and by extension, to the people of our country. That is not right. Furthermore, that individual was a prime donor to the governing party.

The bill is deeply flawed. We are thankful in our country that we do not have the situation south of the border where it costs millions of dollars to run for political office. Thankfully we have limits on what we can spend. Let us never change that. Our current system enables people from all socio-economic groups to run for the highest office in the land and that is a good thing.

It is not a good thing that our current system, even with the bill, will enable big money to be used to influence the tendering of government contracts and potentially the implementation of public policy. The government could deal with that by publishing what it pays and what it receives. That would add the element of transparency in a system and improve the objective of the bill, which is a good one, by eliminating deep pockets from having influence in public policy.

On the issue of tendering of government contracts, we must ensure that Treasury Board guidelines are fulfilled, adhered to, and that the tendering of public contracts is indeed a public and transparent process. If we do not do that and the bill does not address that, then we will still have the influence of deep pockets and big money in public policy and in the tendering process. At the end of the day, it is not our money. It is taxpayers' money we are using. It is not the government's money. Above all, we must be respectful of that because it is our duty to use the money as wisely as possible.

Election Expenses

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

If Bill C-24 had been in effect in 2001, the annual allowance of $1.75 per vote obtained would have allowed the five official parties in the House of Commons to pocket staggering profits.

Since the Leader of the Government knows full well that all the parties would fill their pockets with this disguised cash advance, can the minister explain why he rejects the idea of only reimbursing actual expenses?

Agriculture

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

Mr. Speaker, we had the time this morning to start shoving Bill C-24 through the House. I wish we had the same urgency for beef farmers as we do for the Liberal Party coffers.

The compensation that will be required will be a lot less if we get the borders open. We were told by the United States that when the science was complete the border would be open. The science is now complete, but the border remains closed. Has the Prime Minister yet called the president to get the criteria we will need to get the border with the United States open for our beef products?

Canada Elections Act

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is also my pleasure to rise in debate on Bill C-24 about which, if I am not mistaken, we are considering the second set of amendments. I also want to say right off that it seems absolutely normal, legitimate and desirable to me that this legislation be reviewed following the general election.

Why review the operation of an act after a trial period? Simply to determine whether the original objectives have been met, whether the act could be improved on and whether the desired objectives could be better met.

When it was put forward and debated in committee initially—it was later debated on numerous occasions in the media and the public—the idea was simply to democratize the party financing process as well as to correct a perception, often borne out in fact, about mismanagement or dishonesty in the dealings between donors and political parties concerning financing in general.

All too often, rightly or wrongly, the public has come to realize that those who initiate bills or private member's bills may unfortunately have done so, after being the object—I almost said the victim— of corporate donations of $5,000, $10,000, $50,000 or $200,000.

There have been many instances, in recent parliaments, of questionable situations. The bank merger bill comes to mind.

The government party introduced a bill respecting bank mergers. When we look at the current situation, we see that major Canadian banks are contributing $100,000, $200,000 and even $300,000 to the Liberal Party coffers. Our fellow citizens witnessing this situation are telling themselves that decisions are certainly made on the basis of these donations by large corporations.

What is true of banking institutions is also true of pharmaceuticals, steel, and industry in general, which makes generous donations to the Liberal Party. One can definitely wonder.

I am not suggesting nor stating that political decisions are always influenced by such donations from large companies or big corporations. I am saying that it is normal, up to a certain point, for the general public watching us to believe that these decisions may be influenced by such large sums of money given to the Liberal Party.

Bill C-24 attempts to correct this negative public perception of politics and the relationship between large companies and the political world.

But, more importantly, there are the recent scandals—and, after much thought, I am using the word scandal correctly—involving, for example, the sponsorship companies. The government gave untendered contracts to Groupaction, Everest and Lafleur Communications. New details are being uncovered every day. The longer the House sits, the more question periods there are, and the more scandals that will be discovered. It seems clear. This is happening more and more. Contracts of $500,000, $200,000 and $300,000 are being awarded to companies who are told, “Look, you have to remit 5%, 10% or 15%, depending on the size of the contract, to the Liberal Party's coffers”.

Perhaps, in terms of the first example, people may think that there is some wrongdoing going on among the large companies, the big corporations and the government. But when consulting firms, public relations companies and friends of the government take with one hand, deduct a certain amount and give with the other to the party in power, it seems essential, then, to rectify this type of political party financing. If we are to some small extent a banana republic, we must avoid any further transformation into a system that would be financed the way political parties were financed long ago or during the Middle Ages. Unfortunately, this is still the case today in some countries that have a bad international reputation for the way they finance their election campaigns and their political parties.

This government has reached the bottom of the barrel with the schemes whereby companies give back part of their money to the government. In order to improve the situation before it went too far, the Prime Minister used what works well as inspiration. It is not perfect, there are no perfect, marvellous or paradisiac political systems, otherwise, everyone would adopt them.

In Quebec, what helped, to some degree, the reputation of political parties or politicians in general, was what is known as the René Lévesque act, which was passed in 1976-77. This was one of the first policies implemented after the election, in order to democratize the funding of political parties. Under the legislation, it is the eligible voters who fund political parties.

This form of funding for political parties has been around in Quebec for more than 20 years, for almost 30 years now, and there is no way that anyone would question it or backtrack on it.

Yes, we want to improve certain aspects of this legislation in Quebec that has been in place since then. Yes, we want to improve certain problems, but that does not mean that we question the fundamental principle of Quebec's democratic life being funded by contributions from individual citizens.

That is what Canada wants to do now; it is seen as a good thing, and it is a good thing. Some people, like members of the Canadian Alliance, have said, “We do not want citizens, through the government, to fund election campaigns or political parties”. It seems to me that it would be much simpler for democracy if funding came from citizens instead of from the Royal Bank of Canada, the National Bank, or big P.R. companies like National, that take money from the government and then give it back to the government. If that is a healthy democracy, if that is the modern way of giving political parties the tools and the elements they need to work, then we have not made any of the progress toward the 21st century that we should be able to expect.

In this end of session, after discussions in committee, the government has introduced a bill that is essential to follow up on events and to change the relationship between people and politicians, between business and politicians, this triumvirate in which we live.

If we look at the popularity ratings of the members of this House, we see that a considerable change is required to the way we operate, particularly the way we campaign.

When I sat in on some of the committee meetings on this bill, I heard Liberal MPs saying, “Yes, but now we will have trouble organizing $5,000-a-plate dinners with the PM as guest speaker”. Exactly. We will organize suppers for larger numbers of ordinary folks and will invite them to come to hear the party leaders speak. It seems to me perfectly normal for the Prime Minister or the party leaders, when they travel to major cities, not to just see the people who are able to afford to pay $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000 for the opportunity of meeting them. They should meet others equally entitled to vote.

This is the intent of the bill we have before us today, and is why it indicates to us that we absolutely must look to the future.

Why a review after the election? As I have said, it needs to be revisited in order to make the necessary corrections. There has not been enough of this review process when it comes to other pieces of legislation, for instance the Official Languages Act, which have been in place for nearly 20 years and are absolutely not meeting their intended objectives.

This bill, and the others we will be considering, ought to be automatically subject to this review process, in order to improve them and achieve the objectives set when the discussions prior to their enactment were held.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise with respect to this debate and make further comments on something that was raised during the debate on the subject of trust funds.

It was said that the government had not dealt with trust funds. I beg to differ. I will elaborate with respect to the overview, which I think will bring members of the opposition to the proper conclusion that the matter of trust funds has in fact been dealt with.

There has been a lot of confusion with respect to Bill C-24 and the use of trust funds for political purposes. I believe it is time to correct these misconceptions and to try to set the record straight. In this regard, it is important to be clear about what Bill C-24 will do and what it will not do with respect to trust funds.

Three types of trust fund activity must be clearly distinguished: improper use of trust funds that is caught by Bill C-24; improper use of trust funds that is not caught by Bill C-24 but is dealt with by other means beyond the context of the bill; and finally, the use of trust funds that is not improper and is therefore not caught at all.

By way of overview, first and foremost, Bill C-24 contains a number of safeguards which would ensure that political trust funds cannot be used for election purposes which in fact would evade prohibitions or limits on political donations or deliberately avoid disclosure requirements. The proposed legislation would ban indirect political contributions and provide for a system of full disclosure to ensure that hidden donations are not possible.

Bill C-24 does not, however, and I emphasize this, attempt to address every type of wrongdoing or improper conduct involving political trust funds. It is about political financing specifically in the context of elections. Where trust funds are used for non-election purposes, for example to confer a personal or private benefit, other mechanisms in fact apply. Most specifically, these include the proposed code of conduct for parliamentarians, to be administered by an independent ethics commissioner.

There are also potential uses of trust funds that are not improper and need not be prohibited at all. For example, like other citizens, politicians may wish to involve themselves with charitable work or non-profit causes that have no electoral purpose. This is entirely legitimate, and most members would accept that we are attempting to encourage community based organizations to participate in improving the quality of life in our communities. This is entirely legitimate. In no way could it be suggested that it undermines democratic principles generally or circumvents the electoral finance system in particular. So the fact that trust fund activity can be used for non-electoral purposes is not caught up by Bill C-24 and cannot be regarded as a loophole.

I will discuss the use of trust funds that are caught up by Bill C-24. Later, a colleague will discuss the use of trust funds that are not caught up by Bill C-24 but are caught up by other means, as I illustrated a little earlier.

Let us talk about the use of trust funds for electoral purposes that are caught up and included within the context of Bill C-24. While Bill C-24 does not address trust funds directly, the effect of its provisions would be to prevent the use of trust funds as a way to funnel money to political candidates and parties, thereby deliberately circumventing contribution limits and the disclosure requirements. Bill C-24 provides that any money donated to a candidate, a riding association, a political party, a nomination contestant or a leadership candidate can only come from an individual out of his or her own money.

This is subject to two very limited exceptions for donations from corporations and trade unions and from unincorporated associations made only at the local level and up to a maximum of $1,000 per year. Not being an individual, trust funds cannot contribute in their own right. But what about indirect contributions from the fund through its trustee or trustees?

Where the trustee of the fund is a single individual, no contributions would be possible. This is because Bill C-24 expressly prohibits indirect contributions received from another person or another entity. Thus an individual trustee, like any other individual, could only donate his or her own funds and not funds received indirectly from others.

There may be circumstances however, such as where the trust fund is administered by more than one trustee, where a trust may be treated as an association. Bill C-24 provides a minor exception to the prohibition on indirect contributions by allowing associations of individuals to contribute funds received from other individuals. The names and addresses of original contributors must be disclosed, along with the amount of their contribution.

This is the only way a trust fund could contribute money for electoral purposes. It is not in any way a loophole in the system or an oversight in the bill, but a carefully limited exception. It directly parallels the exception allowing minor contributions from unions and from corporations. Moreover, as I indicated before, contributions are subject to full disclosure of original donors.

This exception in no way undermines the system of contribution limits, since any donations made by an individual to such a trust fund must be deducted from his or her overall contribution limit.

Subject to this very limited exception, the provisions of Bill C-24 would, for example, prevent the use of a trust fund to finance a nomination contest or electoral campaign, or to facilitate the transfer of funds collected by one candidate indirectly to other candidates. Trust fund donations to a political party or leadership contestant would be prohibited altogether, since contributions from unincorporated associations would be confined only to the local level.

In addition to these provisions, the anti-avoidance clause of Bill C-24 is also relevant to the use of trust funds. This section prohibits any attempt to circumvent the bill's contribution limits to conceal the identity of a source or of a donation, or to collude with any person for these purposes. This represents a further protection against the nefarious or unscrupulous use of those trust funds for electoral purposes which in fact would subvert the spirit and scheme of the act.

The Chief Electoral Officer has recognized the extent to which Bill C-24 would solve the problem of unregulated election money being channeled through trust funds. As he stated at a recent international symposium “If Bill C-24 is enacted, the Canada Elections Act will do much to eliminate the perception of, or potential for, undue influence from political contributions”--and I emphasize--“including contributions made from trust funds”.

For these reasons I will vote against Motion No. 12, but of course I will support Motion No. 11.

That deals quite comprehensively with the issue of trust funds as it relates to those that fall within the context of Bill C-24 and the use of those trust funds for electoral purposes which are caught by Bill C-24.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to speak to Bill C-24, especially since it provides for an overhaul of political financing in Canada. Moreover, the Prime Minister himself admits that the system, as set out in Bill C-24, was very much inspired by the one that has existed in Quebec since 1977.

I would remind the House that the system that has existed in Quebec since 1977 was created by someone who did a great deal for the Quebec cause, someone whose goal in public life was to clean up politics. The person who adopted this system in 1977 was René Lévesque.

When this bill was introduced, we heard the Prime Minister, a well-known adversary of sovereignists—whom he detests—praise the system implemented by René Lévesque. Rest assured that to us, as sovereignists, this was sweet music to our ears, a lovely symphony indeed.

Since I have very little time, I should focus on three aspects of the amendments. We know that Bill C-24 was reviewed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, of which I am a member as chief whip for the Bloc Quebecois.

In the amendments I put forward in committee, there were three aspects that I strongly insisted on. Perhaps we can still convince our colleagues from all the parties here. The first one had to do with corporate financing. We know that the system in Quebec prohibits outright any type of financing from corporations, unions or associations of individuals.

Unfortunately, the bill still allows this. It is true that the contribution a large corporation may make is quite small. We are talking about $1,000. However, to clean up politics, the bill should ban any form of corporate financing.

One of the underlying principles of political financing reform, and consequently of cleaning up politics, is to eliminate any undue influence that certain people or groups of people may have on the machinery of government or the elected members of this House.

Of course, under the current system, among the 10 largest contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada are the big banks, like the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Montreal, the CIBC, and so on. The big oil companies are also on the list, the same ones that gouge drivers, the small users. Once again, the gas tax suits the government, just like the issue of competition, the close ties between the oil companies, which control the refineries, distributors and retailers.

When a party receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in election contributions, it is not necessarily motivated to solve the competition problem among oil companies. That is why we must ensure that corporate funding, and union funding, even amounts of $1,000, be completely prohibited.

Since I am running out of time, I want to talk about the second concern we had with the draft bill. I am happy to say that this has been a victory for the Bloc Quebecois. At report stage, we put forward an amendment to lower the limit for individual contributions.

In the bill introduced at first reading, the limit for individual contributions was set at $10,000. I would challenge any member in the House, or anyone here in the galleries or at home, to tell me if they knew many people who could make a $10,000 individual contribution to a candidate. It was completely ridiculous. It lowered the likelihood of members being accountable to middle income or lower income people, those who do not have the means to give that kind of money.

Imagine that a constituent comes to us and says, “I am going to give you $10,000 for your electoral campaign”. Is that person going to carry exactly the same weight as the ordinary person who comes to see us? The current bylaws of the Bloc Quebecois prohibit contributions of this size, in any event. Our current bylaws specify a ceiling of $5,000. But imagine what would happen if our amendment had been defeated. Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois amendment was accepted by the government majority, and the maximum individual contribution will be $5,000.

Most of the contributions to Bloc Quebecois members come from ordinary people who give $2, $5 or $10 to help with our election campaign. During a campaign, our election headquarters receives telephone calls from people who say, “I would like the MP or candidate to come and see me at home. I will have a contribution to make”. Sometimes we cover quite a few kilometres and when we arrive, the caller takes $5 from his wallet and says, “I know that the day after the election you will represent us, because you are a party that represents ordinary citizens and the middle class, not just people who can afford to give $10,000”. Therefore, we were very happy that our amendment was accepted.

There are other amendments that we suggested for Bill C-24. We could have taken advantage of this bill to change the current process for appointing returning officers. I am getting the signal that I have only one minute left so I will try to be brief.

Under the current system appointments are made by the governor in council. It is the government that appoints friends of the party, good Liberal organizers. They are the ones who are appointed returning officers. Unfortunately, although some of them are competent, this practice sometimes leaves the door open for incompetence. Even the chief electoral officer, Mr. Kingsley, asked parliamentarians on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to put forward amendments to model the system after the one that exists in Quebec, in other words, a system of open and transparent competition where job offers are published in the papers so that anyone can apply to become a returning officer in Quebec ridings. This fosters a system free of any political interference or patronage.

Unfortunately, the government did not accept this amendment. Nonetheless, the Bloc Quebecois is stubborn. As long as this is not cleaned up, we will keep coming back to this demand that members of the Bloc Quebecois have been making since 1993.

Since the Speaker is indicating that my time is up, I will conclude.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to report stage of Bill C-24.

I have not had a lot of constituent input. Only a couple of people raised concerns about any onus this might put on local associations and the difficulty in getting volunteers for such work, and the concern related to the financing of the political system by taxpayers. I support the motion for the review of the implications of Bill C-24 and I hope that the views of my constituents are taken into consideration.

The measures contemplated in the bill are of great importance to us as members of the House. They are even of greater importance to Canadians. They are about solidifying and improving public trust in our political institutions. All members would agree that a healthy, democratic process is the most valuable asset that a society can have.

We are all here because we profoundly believe in the importance of the democratic process. We recognize that our capacity to inspire respect for the rule of law is dependent upon it as is our ability to make difficult yet necessary decisions on a wide spectrum of issues such as criminal law reform or the environment.

We are fortunate in this country to have one of the most highly regarded electoral systems in the world, but this does not mean that it is a perfect system and that there is no room for improvement. I would like to take this opportunity to address what is the fundamental core of the bill, the establishment of limits on political contributions.

There is no dispute that money is indispensable to the electoral process. Parties and candidates need money to develop a platform, to communicate with Canadians, and to compete for their support. It must also be recognized that besides voting and running for election, making a political contribution is a legitimate form of political participation. Political fundraising allows the pooling of individual resources in order to pursue common goals.That is why our system, as well as many other regimes around the world, encourages individual contributions.

Yet, a system of unregulated fundraising can adversely affect our system of democratic governance by undermining public confidence in political institutions. When a party or particular candidate relies heavily on a handful of large individual or corporate contributors, there is a concern about the existence of a quid pro quo that can lead to perception of undue influence and a perception of undue influence is just as bad as the reality.

In this regard, the absence of any actual corruption does not diminish the importance of the harm done to our political institutions. One of the most important values underlying our electoral system is that of equality. Where it is perceived that some, because of their wealth, are able to command a disproportionate attention then there is a feeling among citizens that they are not equal participants in the political process.

Obviously there will always be differences in wealth and some individuals have the capacity to spend significantly more than others. Absolute equality in this area cannot be imposed, but setting limits on contributions leads to a broadening of the funding base for political parties and instills some measure of political equality.

In doing so, we take an important step toward improving public trust in our political institutions. That is why a number of other jurisdictions that share a commitment to democratic governance have come to accept the importance of imposing limits on political contributions.

Internationally, these jurisdictions include the United States, France, Spain and Japan. Here in Canada more than half of all the provincial and territorial jurisdictions have imposed limits on contributions, including Quebec, Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, and Yukon.

The experience of these jurisdictions shows that a system of political financing that includes contribution limits is not only worth pursuing but also feasible in practice.

As the government House leader pointed out during his appearance at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the setting of an appropriate contribution limit is by its very nature a line-drawing exercise. There is no magical number.

If we look at the existing limits in other regimes we see that there is a significant range. Some provinces, such as Quebec and Manitoba, have opted for a low limit of $3,000, although it has already been pointed that the $3,000 limit imposed in Quebec would amount to nearly $10,000 today had it been indexed.

In Alberta, by contrast, the annual limit for contributions to a party is $15,000, plus a maximum of $3,750 to the district associations of the same party. This brings the Alberta limit closer to the $20,000 range. In Ontario, there is a limit of $7,500 for each registered party per year.

In the end, the issue is one of balance. One of the key objectives in this legislation is to remove the perception that wealthy individuals have undue influence on political participants.

At the same time, we recognize the importance of financial contributions for an effective electoral system. This was certainly a point made very clear during the hearings by political parties and individual members.

As the minister has indicated at his appearance before the standing committee, he was open to hearing suggestions about what the appropriate limit should be. As he made very clear, however, the ultimate limit chosen must respect the fundamental principles of the bill. In other words, it would have to meet the bill's objective of restoring public confidence in our electoral system while, at the same time, ensuring political participants have access to the resources that they need.

On a positive note, there was virtually no one who appeared before the standing committee who said contribution limits were a bad thing. Most witnesses recognized the need for limits as a way of restoring confidence to our political system. The vast majority of those who addressed the issue of contribution limits focused on the actual level of the limit and many felt that the original $10,000 limit was too high. Suggestions for contribution limits were as varied as the number of witnesses. They ranged from a suggestion by a few members that limits should be as low as $600 for candidates and electoral district associations, to a few witnesses who felt the $10,000 limit was just fine. However, most suggestions seemed to fall into the range of $3,000 to $6,000.

There was also a debate about corporate limits. As a result of the strong sentiment expressed on this issue, the limit for individual contributions was ultimately reduced to $5,000. As part of the amended limit, it is also important to note that candidates would be allowed to contribute an additional $5,000 to their own campaign in election years.

In the end, I believe the committee found an appropriate compromise. The $5,000 contribution limit would provide a necessary balance. It is low enough to combat the perception of influence while, at the same time, providing political participants the funds they need to function effectively.

I would like to conclude by emphasizing the importance of the bill. As I have indicated at the outset, public trust in the democratic process is the lifeblood of public governance and the foundation upon which every member of this House stands.

I believe that imposing reasonable limits on contributions would significantly contribute to enhancing public confidence in the integrity and fairness of our system of representative government.

The contribution limits, when combined with the expanded disclosure measures, the prohibition on corporate and union donations, and the enhanced public financing provisions would mark an important and necessary milestone in our political financing system.

For these reasons, I will be supporting the motion and encourage other members to do so. That being said, I also support the review of this bill as proposed in the motion.

The last point is in refutation to a point that came up the other day. I was astonished that the Alliance spoke against our trade efforts around the world, particularly outside the United States. It was much to our astonishment that the Tories started questioning NAFTA and free trade in North America. In fact, it was not the new leader; he was being democratic. It was the third most popular candidate and a significant portion of the party.

But yesterday, the Alliance member questioned our trade with the rest of the world and its effectiveness. The Alliance was questioning trade that brings so many jobs to Canada and supports so many businesses, especially in these difficult times. The Prime Minister has led these trade missions around the world to Russia, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, South Korea, Thailand, India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia, along with 2,800 reps from Canadian businesses bringing a $30.6 billion increase in trade to Canada. So, if I was working in a company that trades around the world, I would be worried about the Alliance's criticism of Canada's efforts to trade around the world.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

That is right, Madam Speaker, Madawaska—Restigouche, in New Brunswick, a beautiful place to visit over the summer.

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 11 proposes that, following the next general election, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be called upon to consider the effects of the provisions of this bill concerning political financing.

I think this significantly improves Bill C-24. As we know, the bill will result in major changes to the way political activities are financed and to the reporting of financial transactions for all involved in the political process.

As we have heard in committee, these changes will require serious efforts to adjust, particularly at the level of riding associations. The bill proposes major changes to this institution, to bring greater transparency to the transactions made by the associations and greater rigour to their financial management.

The bill also proposes changes which are likely to make these new rules more palatable to those who work, often without pay, in our associations.

I would like to say a word about transparency. Back in the early 1990s, the Lortie Commission said, and I quote:

Full disclosure of information on financial contributions and expenditures is an integral component of an electoral system that inspires public confidence. Essential to enhancing the integrity of the political system are the principles of transparency and public accountability.

Sharing this vision, the Chief Electoral Officer has been harsh in his criticism of the current system. His reference to a “black hole”, by which he means the activities of riding associations, has often been quoted.

Most hon. members will agree with me that there is nothing very mysterious going on in our associations. Complete disclosure, once a year, of the contributions received and expenses incurred by riding associations would show this.

We at the federal level are not the first to demand transparency of our riding associations. Seven provinces already do this. Those of us who represent ridings in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia can attest that provincial riding associations already have to provide this kind of information every year.

The bill provides that on or before May 31 of every year, the financial agent of each registered association shall submit the association's financial transactions return for the preceding fiscal year to Elections Canada. In that return, the financial agent will provide a statement of contributions received by the association, by class of donor, as well as a list, with names and addresses, of donors who have made contributions of over $200 to the association during the year. This is the same rule that already applies to parties and candidates in an election.

Special rules will also apply for the initial return, when the association registers with Elections Canada. It will not be necessary, at the time of registration, to disclose the source of contributions received before the last general election, simply the total assets of the association, including bank balances.

The bill also provides that if the association is eliminated by changes in electoral boundaries, it will be possible to transfer funds to other riding associations. In that case, the bill recognizes the extent to which it would be difficult for an association receiving funds from another association to be expected to disclose the source of funds. Thus, if the transfer is made within six months after the riding association is eliminated, it will not be necessary to disclose the source of funds but only the total actually received from the former association.

I would like to mention an important improvement that was made to the bill in committee. This improvement will significantly reduce the impact of a electoral boundary review on riding associations.

Under the new rules, the deregistration of an association following the readjustment of electoral boundaries will not be automatic. In fact, it will be possible for the registered association to continue as the association for a particular electoral district simply by filing a notice with the Chief Electoral Officer, without having to deregister and re-register.

Furthermore, it will be possible for an association to pre-register once a representation order has been given, so that the association can be automatically registered once the order comes into force.

The aim of the bill is not only transparency, but also greater responsibility for the riding associations. It makes registered riding associations responsible for respecting certain basic rules of financial administration, such as appointing a financial agent, an electoral district agent and an auditor.

The bill provides for the auditing of the association's accounts if it has accepted contributions of more than $5,000 or incurred expenses of more than $5,000 in a fiscal year. This obligation to conduct an audit therefore applies only to associations that remain active between elections.

Under the bill, those riding associations that must conduct an audit of their books will receive a refund of up to $1,500 of their audit expenses.

The obligation to conduct an audit for riding associations that remain active between elections is not new. This is already being done in the majority of provinces where riding association reports are required.

There are a number of other provisions in the bill concerning riding associations. Seeing that these take up 15 pages, one cannot avoid asking oneself some questions. Most of the provisions, however, are adaptations of the rules that apply to the parties and there are many to protect riding associations in the event of disputes.

There is a special rule for the associations, however: no more than one riding association can be registered in each riding.

Riding associations of registered parties that accept these rules and register with the Chief Electoral Officer will acquire the following rights: the right to accept contributions, the right to provide services and to transfer funds to a candidate supported by the party and, finally, the right to accept surplus electoral funds from a candidate, leadership contestant or nomination contestant.

What is more, they may issue receipts for income tax purposes themselves when they receive contributions. They will no longer need to forward these contributions to the party between election campaigns in order to have receipts issued, or to pay the charges levied by some parties for issuing these receipts.

All in all, I believe that the provisions of this bill, which are aimed at the riding associations, will enhance transparency. They will also facilitate better management of the financial operations of these associations. Finally, in connection with the authorization to issue tax receipts for contributions made outside of election campaign periods, we must admit that this will relieve the associations of a major irritant.

Some of us have justifiable concerns about adding to the burden of the volunteers who run our riding associations. The bill, with all its clauses, does nothing to allay those concerns. On the other hand, if one reads the bill carefully, it is clear that with the exception of some new reporting requirements, the new rules are entirely consistent with good financial administration. In many cases, I bet we will find, in discussing this with our riding association presidents and treasurers, that the association will have already put these rules, or something similar, in place.

Moreover, the addition proposed by Motion No. 11 provides assurance that an examination of these issues will be carried out after the next general election.

Given the importance of the changes proposed by Bill C-24—and I have only addressed the ones affecting the riding associations—I believe this is a wise measure and one which ought to reassure the members of this House.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to also speak today on Bill C-24 at report stage.

Just last week, I was speaking on the Lobbyists Registration Act. I think that today's debate is a bit similar to the one we had last week. I had suggested that differences between lobbyists be established. Of course, lobbyists with a $400,000 lobby campaign probably exert more influence than lobbyists with a $40,000 lobby campaign.

Today's debate is somewhat similar, in terms of setting limits on political party contributions and financing. Last week, I had an idea—an ideal, some would say—about how the electorate should be served. Is it normal that a voter , who cannot afford a membership card or to make contributions to a campaign fund, would receive much fewer services than someone who makes major contributions? People will say that this is not an ideal world. That may be true, but one fact remains: politics is a bit like justice, there must be, at the very least, the appearance of justice for it to work.

In politics, everyone knows full well, no matter what people say, that if they call the Prime Minister, they are much less likely to get him on the line than the President of the Royal Bank is.

Given the implications of this system, I support voters who say, “Is it possible to better serve voters by implementing rules to ensure some fairness for all?” Even if we know that this could never be totally true, one fact remains: the system, in its current state, cannot continue if the goal is the appearance of transparency in politics.

So, it was important for me to consider these bills in relation to each other. In both the Lobbyists Registration Act and the political party financing legislation, such individuals can exert an influence both on the executive branch, or cabinet, and the legislative branch. Quite obviously, those who want to be truly effective will hire the best lobbyists at top dollar and will likely make significant contributions to the campaign funds of political parties that promote or might promote their values.

Today's debate is important. Finally, after nine years, we in the Bloc Quebecois are having the satisfaction of seeing this bill being brought in, as we had been asking for the longest time. Ever since I was elected to this place in 1993, we have been calling for a reform of party financing along the lines of what was done in Quebec, where this reform took place more than 20 years ago now. I will remind members that, in Quebec, corporate and union donations are prohibited; only individual donations are allowed. This limits the influence of large corporations and big unions.

We could look at several examples. One example is election funds. it is not often mentioned that election funds are political party funds. There is a double distortion in election funds and in contributions, in that contributions can be made to candidates running for the leadership of a party, as is the case right now. There are clearly distortions. The more people get the impression that corporations and unions are making contributions, the more they get the impression that these corporations and unions are exerting influence. That is probably also true.

Not so long ago, the Liberal Party was complaining to the leadership candidates that hardly any money was going into the party's coffers, since large corporations were investing in one leadership candidate or another, which left less money for the party.

We can see that there are great distortions and a great lack of transparency in the existing system. I think that the bill before us will put this right.

There are many examples. Everyone talks about sponsorships. This was a program established by a former minister who is currently the ambassador to Denmark and who may be appointed to the Vatican. We shall see. There was indeed a program whereby contracts were consistently awarded to friends of the party in exchange for contributions to the Liberal Party.

The result is that there is no longer any transparency in politics. The voter can no longer keep track of things and can become very cynical. Afterward, we wonder why the turnout at various elections is so low. Maybe it is cases such as these that make voters lose confidence.

If we look at the government's behaviour toward big contributors it is no wonder. Every year, we see how much is given by the big banks, the oil companies, Bell Canada and so on. We can understand why a voter would say, “That explains the government's reaction”.

For instance, we have been asking the government for years to control the service charges imposed by the banks. There are fixed charges and all sorts of charges. The big banks have not stopped making exorbitant profits over the years. We have realized that the government is very reluctant to put an end to this. If people knew who the top 20 contributors to the Liberal Party were, they would see that in fact the big banks are among.

The same goes for the oil companies. We have been asking the Minister of Industry for months to work with the commissioner of competition and fully enforce the Competition Act. The minister says, “It is not up to us to regulate the price at the pumps”. That is not what we are asking it to do. We are saying that it is not normal for four gas stations on the same street corner to increase or decrease their prices at the same time.

There is definitely collusion among the oil companies. The minister keeps playing the same old tape, which is that the price at the pump comes under Quebec's jurisdiction. Clearly, he has no regard for the Competition Act. If people knew who the main contributors were to the party's coffers, they would perhaps understand why the Liberals want to put the ball back in Quebec's court. They do not want to upset those who contribute the most.

To take the banks as just one example, one of my Liberal colleagues has said that the banks probably donated to everybody. That is not so. When the Bloc Quebecois was established, it adopted Quebec's approach to political donations, and so it was all personal contributions. Imagine what I heard from the banks, “Mr. Bachand, if you complied with the federal legislation, there would be some nice little cheques of $500 or $1,000 waiting for you at our bank, We are prepared to make donations to you, but you see, you do not comply with the federal legislation”.

In 1997, a debate was held at the Bloc Quebecois convention, and we decided to fight on an equal footing with the federal parties, to accept cheques from major corporations and banks. I went to the banks that had so kindly told me off and I told them, “Well, are you aware that we are now accepting cheques from corporations and companies? So could I have this year what you were offering me last year?” Then I heard a different argument. “We would be glad to donate to you. We know you comply with the federal legislation, but unfortunately you are not running candidates in all ridings in Canada”. Will the Bloc Quebecois have to create an Ontario wing, a Manitoba wing, and so on, in order to comply with the new rules the banks have adopted?

Clearly they have intentions. We have seen that the money they contribute is for very specific purposes, to protect their turf. That is as much the case with the banks as with the oil companies or Bell Canada.

I sit next to representatives from Bell Canada at meetings of the Haut-Richelieu chamber of commerce. They tell me, “You know Mr. Bachand, we do not give any political contributions. We would love to go to your cocktail party, but we do not contribute. We do not want to get involved in politics”. I learned from the chair that Bell Canada gives $50,000 to the Liberal Party and the same amount to both the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance. Yet, we do not get anything.

So, this is important. Democracy cannot be bought. I think that $1.50 or $1.75 per voter, as proposed, is perfectly suitable. People must understand that governments must not be influenced by money in our society. Until this bill is passed to do away with the whole issue of influence over political parties in return for special treatment for businesses, there will not be any transparency in politics. That is what voters want right now.

We are very happy about this bill. Obviously we will be supporting it. I would invite all of my colleagues in the House of Commons to support this bill to get our house in order, once and for all, and to restore voters' confidence in politics.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.

There is no question we have heard a variety of perspectives from different parties and from within the parties as to how we need to approach the bill. My Liberal colleague who just spoke has indicated he does not feel a few thousand dollars will buy influence with members of Parliament or the governing party. The perception out there among Canadians from coast to coast to coast, because it is not a regionalized issue by any means, is that a lot of money does buy influence. Whether it is a huge amount of dollars given by corporations or by unions, the perception is that democracy will be influenced. That is a major issue. To suggest in some way that it is not a real problem, is turning a blind eye to what we are hearing from Canadians.

I do not think there is any question that we need to see some changes through the process of elections in Canada, and in a number of other areas within Parliament. I do not believe for one second that this is the only thing we have to do to ensure a real democratic process and to ensure there is a process that is not influenced by certain sources.

There is a lot more to be done and part of that will come from maybe an independent ethics commissioner responding to particular things. The key factor that has Canadians so enraged in the last while has been the number of patronage types of expenditures that have appeared within the public works department and within the government.

The former minister who is no longer with us, Minister Gagliano, received an appointment after all those huge expenditures, with indications of patronage. He resigned and received an ambassadorship in Denmark. However the Vatican has indicated it is not willing to accept him as an ambassador there. From the perspective of Canadians, that is a plus, because there were a lot of upset people, Canadians and parliamentarians, over the blatant type of patronage contracts within the government.

There is an issue, even though my Liberal colleague said there is not. Whether it is a perception or reality, that may have to be proven. From my perspective, it is a reality. There is no doubt in my mind, judging from some of the things that have come up, there is an issue.

Quite frankly within the New Democratic Party we have not accepted large donations from corporations. We have accepted them from unions, but from a broad spectrum, and unions give to other parties as well. We will support the legislation that will ensure there are limitations put in place.

As has been indicated so far in the discussion, we think the legislation is unfair in that corporations at every level can make donations but unions cannot. I want to speak to this directly.

United Food and Commercial Workers is a union to which I still belong. I pay my union dues every year. I have benefited from a unionized workforce, a contract that has given me an opportunity to be away from my employment. Should I not have the opportunity to be elected at some point, I will be able to go back to that employer, so I have benefited from that. However I have paid my union dues.

The United Food and Commercial Workers has a number of locals throughout Canada. I specifically belong to local 832 within the province of Manitoba. There are numerous locals throughout the country with which I never have contact at any given point. To suggest that UFCW, as a nation, can only make one donation is unacceptable. I have been a contributing member of my union.

We have a signing agreement to allow money to be taken from our union dues for political donations. I believe there is a democratic process in place for any members who do not want that to happen, if they really want to pursue it. I was given an opportunity as to whether I did.

However I want to emphasize what is unfair within this legislation. The union local that I belong to by rights could not make a donation to myself if the Canadian UFCW, as a whole, made one donation of so much money. That is unfair. If we are working at fixing the system, then we need to fix it to be fair, not continue with it as a one-sided issue.

If we look at the amount of donations that corporations make as a whole compared to what unions make as a whole, there is an imbalance. There is no question that a number of times corporations have made rather large donations and appear to have benefited from that in the way of government contracts. I would challenge anyone to show me how a union contribution has benefited an individual corporation or individual union and not the Canadian public as a whole.

Any legislation, which I have seen in the House or elsewhere, that unions have supported have not just been legislation that says only unions will benefit, such as health and safety legislation. It has been legislation that would benefit every Canadian. It was not legislation that said this union would get this much money for this contract. That is not how it works, and that is because union members as a whole want to see improvements throughout the nation. That is generally how things have worked.

We have seen a lot of major social changes as a result of the efforts of unions throughout the country. There was a statement made from someone within the New Democratic Party, as a CCF member. The individual said that what we desired for ourselves, we wished for all. That is our perspective as well. That is what we want to see. We are not just out for ourselves.

Within this election reform bill, if it is allowed to go as is without some changes to whether a small union local can give some dollars to someone in its area, that is unacceptable. We have 301 ridings across the country right now. I would be willing to guess that probably every riding has some union in place. To suggest that of those 301 ridings a union can only make one donation of a certain amount or that it spreads it so thin with a $2 or $5 donation to each and every candidate, if so desired, is unacceptable.

An other statement that came up from my Liberal colleague was what was the rush to get this through. Like so many pieces of legislation that come before the House, if we are ever going to see anything done, we have to get on with doing it. I know if there is a will to see things change and improve, it can happen. If there is a will to really not do anything, it can be dragged out.

There has been one issue that has been on the forefront for me and for members within my party, and that is bringing in legislation on corporate liability and corporate accountability. It was lost in the last Parliament because an election was called. This time around it came up again. We were to see legislation before us, but that has not happened. We risk possibly losing that again if we do not get on with it.

What is the rush? The rush is if we do not just darn well go ahead and make these changes, they will never happen. If it has to be done in the name of the Prime Minister wanting a legacy, then so be it, let us make some changes. I would like to have seen a legacy that might have turned out a whole lot fairer than what this bill may imply but it is a step in the right direction.

I hope Parliament will support this legislation. Obviously we have some problems with bits of it and we will deal with them, but there is no question that it is a move in the right direction. I think it is something Canadians want to see. My time is up, but I will come back on the next round.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at report stage of the various amendments to Bill C-24.

I support transparency in donations that are made to political parties, to candidates and to members of Parliament. I support full disclosure and full transparency, and I say that unequivocally. Members of parliament should have transparency in disclosing the kind of support we receive across a broad spectrum of Canadian society.

I know there have been many discussions and negotiations at committee on the bill and it looks like some progress has been made. However I still have a number of concerns and they fall into essentially three categories.

First, my most fundamental questions are: Why do we need the bill? What problem are we trying to fix? I will come back to that in a moment.

Second, I have concerns about the limits to corporations and to unions. I will come back to that in a moment.

Third, we have had a serious lack of effective consultation on the bill. I understand that many of the parties are agreeable to some of the amendments but I wonder if we are not rushing into this without having a proper review of the implementation and without having the major stakeholder groups onside and supporting this important legislation.

I would like to come back to my first question. Why is the bill needed? As I said earlier, we need full transparency, and I certainly support that aspect of the bill, but the bill goes beyond that. It seems to me that the government is trying to deal with perceptions among Canadians, perceptions that perhaps politicians are not totally honourable people and perhaps are influenced by donations from corporations and unions.

It seems to me that government should be leading, not by dealing with perceptions but by dealing with substantive issues. If the perceptions are wrong, then the government should be communicating to Canadians that parliamentarians are honourable people and are not influenced by donations in their service to the Canadian public.

We did have some problems with the sponsorship program in the province of Quebec, which was a very unfortunate circumstance. The Minister of Public Works has taken it upon himself to remedy that situation. Sponsorship contracting has all been brought back in-house and I think that will deal with that particular problem.

Therefore why do we need legislation to respond to one particular circumstance? My perception is that this legislation is partly in response to some of the very difficult situations the government found itself in with respect to the sponsorship program in the province of Quebec. However does that mean we need legislation to limit donations for corporations and unions as a matter of general policy? I have some difficulty with that.

I do not have any difficulty limiting corporate donations and donations from unions because some of the amounts can get quite large, which can become a problem, although maybe not consciously. However to limit corporate and union donations to $1,000 is somewhat overkill.

In my riding it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. I think I can count on my left hand the number of corporate or union donations I have received that have exceeded $1,000. In fact, if I did see one I would probably ask myself why they were doing that.

Typically, my fundraisers include a reception at which corporations, individuals and organizations might pay $200 to attend and support the process. Do they really feel that by buying a ticket to my fundraiser for $200 they will be creating all kinds of access or opportunities for them to influence government?

I am sorry, while I very much appreciate their support, a $200 donation at my fundraiser will not exactly pave the way for instant access to the government, or to me for that matter. I have very much of an open door policy in my riding. Citizens can pick up the phone and say that they want to see me, and that will happen. It may not happen that day or that week but it will happen. Access is not a problem.

If we look at the Canadian bankers for example, they are one of the largest donators to political parties. In fact they are like many large corporations, they donate to all the major political parties. They might donate to the governing party in a larger amount but they donate to all the political parties. They support the process.

If we recall, in 1988 the bankers wanted bank mergers very badly. The government said no. They must have asked themselves what value their corporate donations made or what value they had. I suspect that really when we look at it, they probably would not necessarily put the question to themselves in that way because they are supporting the democratic process. They also know that in the formation of public policy, sometimes one is successful and sometimes one is not, depending on the issue and the validity of the issue being pursuing.

The way the bill is presented and the one we will probably vote on will have no impact on me at the riding level. I just want to make that clear.

One of the difficulties is we disengage corporate Canada and unions. When we go to big fundraising dinners with the Prime Minister, we meet people and network with them. Sometimes we put a face to a name or there is a fleeting moment where someone could raise an issue. It is a matter of communications, networking and having corporate Canada and unions engaged in the process. The bill is somewhat of an overkill to deal with something that seems to be a perception problem.

The other problem I see with the bill is we will end up going to the public purse for more subsidies for the political process. We have a system that is frankly working, where we have corporate Canada and unions already supporting the political process. I do not really believe it buys them that much influence. There have been some exceptions, but in general terms I do not believe it does. Nor do they look upon it that way. They want to make contact, support the process and engage in the public policy process in the politics of the country.

I could support certain limits to the corporate and union donations but I have difficulty with the $1,000 limit. If in my riding of Etobicoke North, I get a donation from the president of a local company for $2,000, will I really think that person, on a personal level, thinks I am a nice guy and that I do a good job? If I get a donation from the president of a local company for $2,000, my bells will start to ring, that there is something people want. It will not be that individual; it will be that individual on behalf of the corporation.

We all have to deal with these realities. When I get a large donations, maybe $500 or $750, I do ask myself what those people might be looking for. At that level, I do not spend too much time thinking about it but I appreciate that the corporate world and unions in my riding are engaged in the political process.

I personally support full transparency. Every Canadian should know exactly who has donated to my campaign and to every member in the House, every candidate. However I have difficulties with the current limits that are proposed in the bill.

I understood there were to be report stage amendments which unfortunately were ruled out of order. That of course is the prerogative of the Chair. However I was hoping for that kind of relief on the bill. It did not happen. I will now have some difficulty supporting those limits where we are basically disengaging corporate Canada and unions from the political process.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are a few bills that are very important for most members of Parliament to speak to, and certainly this bill is one. Unfortunately, the government House leader has chosen to cut off debate simply because the Prime Minister has his legacy in mind and particularly wants the bill passed before the House rises for the summer.

I for one am scheduled to be here until a week Friday. I intend to be here until a week Friday unless the government decides to cut the session short for whatever reason.

We have time to get into the bill. We have time to get onto the record the items that are of concern to our constituents, yet the government has chosen to move forward with closure.

With respect to Group No. 2, Motion No. 11, which we are currently debating, we do support the fact that there should be a review of the act to assess the impact after the first election.

Clearly, we should get as close as we possibly can to reviewing the bill and the impact it will have on politics in Canada and on Canadians in general, but I would suggest that if we were not under this closure by the government, if we had not been shut down, we would have been able to bring out all the issues, or at least most of the issues, that show the bill to be, frankly, in contempt of the people of Canada.

Let us take a look at the stated reason of the Prime Minister for the bill in the first place. The stated reason for the bill is that the Prime Minister has been caught doing a tremendous number of things, first by the National Post when it was governed by Conrad Black. We all know the relationship that is not there between the Prime Minister and Conrad Black. Many events have taken place around the government, for instance with the former public works minister who is now in charge of our embassy in Denmark. These events are all things for which the Canadian public has a right to know and indeed for which the Canadian public has an extreme distaste. These are things that are very sorry, very sad and certainly put the honourable profession of being a politician into serious question and into great disrepute.

Because of the actions of the Prime Minister and his cabinet, we now have this bill. That is rather ridiculous. If the Prime Minister had not undertaken the kind of questionable activity in which he was involved and if he had kept proper control over his front bench, over the cabinet, over the government of the day, the Canadian public would not be questioning this.

What is his solution? His solution is to dig deeper into the Canadian taxpayers' pockets.

As the political system presently works, a number of rebates are available to people who choose to contribute to my campaign, to any other member's campaign or to a recognized political party. Through those rebates and tax credits, the people of Canada are currently providing about 60¢ of every dollar that political parties spend. Sixty cents of every dollar that political parties spend currently comes out of taxpayers' pockets as it is. Therefore the Prime Minister's solution to his questionable ethics and his questionable activity is to dig deeper into taxpayers' pockets and go after 80¢ on the dollar.

Now that is bad enough, but what is worse, which to me is the nub of the issue, is that the financing of political parties will be based on the number of popular votes that they received in the last general election.

If we were to go back to 1988 and 1989, when the Reform Party first came on the scene, and then we fast forward to 1993, when the Reform Party at that particular point had so few votes, where would my party have had the resources to fight against the well financed Liberals and Conservatives? We simply would not have been able to do it.

We are now in a position where, if the bill passes, a party like the Reform Party, coming out of whatever jurisdiction in Canada and following whatever interests the party may have, will not have access to all the largesse that is being provided by the bill out of taxpayers' pockets. In other words, we now have a closed shop situation.

The member across asked where we got the money. I will tell him where we got the money. We got the money from people $1, $5, $20 at a time who were really concerned about the way in which the government of the day, the Conservatives, were completely mismanaging and completely out of touch with the people of Canada.

The people of western Canada, in particular, voted very strongly for the Conservatives, both in 1984 and again in 1988, to maintain the Conservatives in power because they believed, unfortunately falsely believed, that the Conservatives would be paying attention to the concerns of the people west of the Manitoba-Ontario border. They did not and, as a consequence, many people, $1 at a time, $5 at a time, $20 at a time, ended up contributing large amounts of money to the Reform Party. Hence, we had the ability to fight the election in 1993, 1997 and again in 2000. My point is that the bill would stop another reform party.

Perhaps there are people in the House who would jokingly, or even with a pointed joke, ask what the problem is with that. The problem with that is that it is a case of freedom of speech. If I, as a small “d” democrat, believe that the people of Canada should have people who are representing their views, their wishes, their desires and their direction, then I must also expect that there will be some in the community who will oppose my point of view. That is what democracy is all about.

Now, however, to repeat, as a result of Bill C-24, fundamentally new political parties in Canada are not welcome. There is no place for them because there is no way for them to function. There is no way for them to get their message out. There is no way for them to compete with organizations like the Liberals have with all the political staffers.

Where does the money come from for them? Where does the money come from for the computer programs that they run with? Where does the money come from for the storefronts or for the offices? Historically it has come from 60¢ on the dollar from the Canadian taxpayer and 40¢ on the dollar from their supporters, many of which are the large corporations, which is fine. Now we have reached a point where 80¢ will come from taxpayers and only 20¢ from volunteers.

There is another smaller problem but, nonetheless, a serious one. I would be hard-pressed to find anyone in my constituency who had any appetite for supporting the BQ. Conversely, I rather suspect that my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois would tell me there are very few people in his province who would be interested in supporting my party, which is fine. Those are the choices. At least they were the choices up until Bill C-24.

Under Bill C-24, people in my constituency in the Rocky Mountains will be obliged to pay for the Bloc Quebecois. Conversely, there will be people who feel very strongly about certain issues and oppose the Canadian Alliance Party with all their might. That is democracy. However those same people will be compelled to pay support to the Canadian Alliance.

This bill, although it had questionable intentions to begin with, has gone downhill from that point. In fact, this bill is just fundamentally anti-democratic.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on Bill C-24, and particularly on Motion No. 11 which will make it possible for a review to be carried out after a certain period of time. This is a normal practice; Quebec has provision for it in its legislation governing political party funding.

I have never been prouder to be a Quebecker than I am today. Quebec has set an example for the people across the floor. The Government of Quebec took a real step on behalf of democracy in 1977 on the urging of René Lévesque.

I do not know if it is his approaching retirement that has wakened the Prime Minister of Canada up and moved him toward transparency, but for the second time in only a few weeks I want to congratulate him for taking his inspiration from Quebec legislation.

As hon. members are aware, democracy has many faces. Democracy takes on the face governments want the public to see. At the present time, federal political parties are financed in such a way that the public gets a very negative image. As my colleague in the Liberal Party has just said, we found our constituents discouraged. They told us, “On the federal level big corporations have control over the government, with hidden funds that end up filling the coffers of the party in power”.

At last a new day has dawned in Canada. Things are not perfect, of course, but this is a very important first step. For the years we have been here on the federal scene, all Bloc Quebecois members have been constantly calling upon the government to take action to at least bring in some transparency, for there at last to be some guidelines for political party financing.

Yes, that day is soon to be with us and at last we will be able to speak. We Bloc Quebecois MPs are financed by donations of $5, $10 or maybe $100. As a result, there are no strings attached and we can go and talk to people, ask their opinions on bills, on what is going on in their daily lives.

That is why Quebeckers identify with the Bloc Quebecois. In order to get $5, we often have to go five, six or seven times before we get the chance to talk to someone. We tell people that it is important they fund political parties through a small contribution of $5 to get a membership card, because that is what democracy is about. It assures them that their representative will never be bound by slush funds and big money, as we have seen in federal politics for decades.

There were some serious problems. I do not know why it took the Prime Minister so long to wake up to this, but as they say, “better late than never”. So, this is slow in coming, but it is finally being done and we will finally be able to have democracy. However, I think that we need to keep talking about this because democracy has many faces. For political parties, the first criterion of democracy is transparency when it comes to funding.

Earlier, my colleague, the member for Châteauguay—whom I commend for the work he has done on the file involving Mr. Gagliano—gave us some examples. He was telling us how, in the past, Mr. Alfonso Gagliano, who acted as the Prime Minister's right hand man in Quebec, had set up a patronage system involving funding, cronies and friends of the party. The tentacles even reached to his own son.

How many times—we are doing it still today—have we denounced this way of doing things? This has had an extremely serious impact on democracy and on the accessibility and independence of politicians, given that this was an issue that concerned the fundamental values of an individual.

We need to denounce this type of activity. We must not say that the slate is wiped clean with this new bill and that is the end of the story. We must continue to denounce what happened with Alfonso Gagliano. There need to be independent inquiries; we must get to the bottom of this. In fact, with this bill, people will say, “Finally”.

Still, we cannot say we are turning our backs on the dishonest practices of the past, wiping the slate clean and starting over. No. Things have been done in the past. In January 2004, this bill will take effect and introduce a new mechanism. Then we will have to be very vigilant to ensure that all political parties in this House of Commons are fully onside and ready to follow the new rules. We must not forget that it is not easy to change longstanding fundraising habits.

My hon. Liberal colleague was saying that in Quebec in 1964, under Jean Lesage, some faint questions began to be raised. We must never forget that the Liberal Party of Quebec was a carbon copy of its federal counterpart when it came to such practices.

So we are indebted to the foresight of René Lévesque, whose memory I want to honour today; this man was truly a trailblazer and a guiding light for the people of Quebec. René Lévesque was a democrat in the broadest sense. He was a man who believed that the individual should take precedence over society.

The Prime Minister of Canada is wise to take a page from his book. If Mr. Lévesque were alive today, and sitting in this House, I think he would walk across the floor and say to the Prime Minister, “Bravo. I have been a Liberal in the past, but congratulations”. Sometimes, perhaps, when one is approaching one's twilight years—because the Prime Minister is getting close to his announced retirement—one steps back and regards one's political adversaries in a different light, and can look to them for inspiration. This is a historic moment for the House of Commons as we consider Bill C-24.

The hon. members of the Bloc Quebecois, my constituents in Jonquière, and I, myself, will finally be able to say that all the rules are the same. No one is going to have a slush fund and everyone will be on an equal footing. Finally, we will be able to debate the real issues in future election campaigns and membership and fundraising drives, without our constituents saying, “That person will not speak for me, because his financing comes from the slush fund”.

Bravo. There are other groups of amendments and it will be my pleasure to speak to them at a later time.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware that Bill C-24 will bring significant changes in the way political activities are financed and the way all participants in the political process report on their financial operations.

I would like to point out to the House that five or six years ago, I introduced a private members' bill in the House, a bill which unfortunately was not voted upon. I based my argument on a thesis by a doctoral student at the University of New Brunswick, a Mr. Stewart. He proposed a revolutionary change that was really quite simple. He felt that it was time for the state—the government, the people—to finance the political parties.

Why? Because the democratic process is such that political parties are the most fundamental part of our democracy. If the method we use to elect our representatives is not transparent and clear, democracy will suffer.

In any case, the private members' bill that I introduced in the House was inspired, as I said, by his thesis that the state should foot the entire bill for an election. It may seem like a large amount, but I did some research before introducing that bill. I gathered information from Revenue Canada, Elections Canada, and even the Department of Finance, in order to find out how much the current system was costing us with tax credits, corporate tax deductions, and so on. To my great surprise, the total was over $25 million per year.

Thus, we will have gone through all that paperwork and all those procedures, when it would have been simpler for the government to take responsibility, saying that if it already costs over $25 million, it would be much easier to have an equitable system, as Bill C-24 recommends.

Obviously, this is a step in the right direction. I was well aware that the state was not going to provide funding overnight. I reasoned that if ten people were stopped in the street and asked, “Do you believe that the political party financing system is fair, just and transparent and that the wealthy have no undue influence?”, obviously, nine out of ten people would say, “Hey, do I look stupid?” Everyone knows that there are minor problems and that there is a lack of transparency.

So, my argument was as follows. If the electorate is not convinced that the political party financing system is open and transparent, we have the obligation to change it. If we believe that it is just, then we must defend it and prove to our fellow citizens that it is fair and transparent. But this is not the case. So, we have bills such as this one. The argument is quite simple. We represent the people, but if they have a very poor perception of something, it must be changed.

But, it must be said that Quebec was the first province to have taken the initiative to introduce such changes. I remember, in 1964, the Lesage government took the first steps. It limited nomination expenses per riding. Previously, there were slush funds. People know a little bit about our provincial history in this regard.

In any case, this turned out to be the first step in limiting riding expenses.

Later, in 1977, the year René Lévesque came to power, the government set limits on the donations individuals could make to political parties. These were all steps forward.

Of course, when I proposed my private member's bill at the time, I thought there was eventually going to be a much more open and transparent system. If we believe profoundly in our democratic system—I do and I am convinced that we do have a democracy—we must ensure that the party financing process, which is the very basis of democracy, is fair, equitable and above all, transparent. The whole idea of the wealthy or large corporations unduly influencing the government is no longer valid. I am convinced that this will be a great step forward.

As I indicated, in preparing my bill I consulted many people and organizations not only in my region but also across Canada. I spoke to a number of people and everyone said the same thing, “It goes without saying that, in our system, people have a perception that must be changed”.

Bill C-24 marks a step forward. There is no doubt the day will come—I hope I will live long enough to see this—when the state will take over party financing and fund-raising campaigns will no longer be necessary. I know that for many of my hon. colleagues, this is a big burden. We spend a great deal of time raising funds for election campaigns. All this could end.

I will conclude by saying that it is not complicated at all. In fact, it is very simple. We must correct the misconception our fellow citizens have. This is a step forward. I hope that in coming years, in spite of the great many problems experienced in the past, we will be able to show that our system works. It is a start. Let us hope that this is the beginning of a future party financing system that will be the most equitable and democratic in all democratic countries.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-24 and, of course, on Amendment No. 11 to create section 536.1.

First, it must be said yet again that the Bloc Quebecois is delighted that the government has introduced this bill, nearly 30 years after Quebec adopted its own political party financing legislation. It is a matter of ensuring a more public financing system, so as to avoid the situation that has existed for a number of years, particularly in the last two, with the sponsorship program.

It is not for nothing that this independence needs to be reworked, so as to ensure that donors have no ties to political parties, as is the case with the sponsorship program and all the money that has been transferred. Groupaction and Everest are just a few examples. So, all the ill effects on society are obvious.

I am my party's public works critic. It is no fun for me to expose the existing corruption or the schemes used to fill the Liberal Party's pockets with public program funding.

It is clear that this bill had to be introduced and the Bloc Quebecois, as I said, agrees with having ceilings on contributions. Why do we agree with this?

It is easy to see that if an individual or a company can finance a political party, he or she certainly will not do so simply so that the political party can win elections, especially if the person gives astronomical amounts of money in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the troubling cases that are currently in the hands of the RCMP, we are talking about contributions of $63,000 and $100,000. Those are big contributors. When someone gives that much money, they expect something in return.

Unfortunately, the sponsorship program was purposely introduced to boost Canada's visibility in Quebec. Of course this was after the 1995 referendum. Nevertheless, the sovereignist movement is still strong in Quebec. People are trying to show and to have everyone believe—especially the media—that the sovereignist movement is on the decline in Quebec after a general election that truly had nothing to do with sovereignty. The only polls that are talked about are those which show a drop in the number of people intending to vote in a general election. However, no one talks about the polls which show that support for sovereignty is still over 40%.

That is why there is an interest in having legislation that sets out ceilings both for individuals and companies. Why? Naturally when we look at these sums of money, $5,000 could be considered a lot for an individual. It is true. There are not too many people who are able to give $5,000, but that is the ceiling; and for companies the ceiling is $1,000.

This also has to be monitored. The legislation specifies that the ceilings of $1,000 for companies and $5,000 for individuals will allow everyone to donate to the party that represents their vision.

Will this be a democratic party? Will it be a party that prefers to be authoritarian and anti-democratic, as the Liberals have been since 1993? Only the leader of this government, the Prime Minister, surrounded of course by the staff of the PMO, has controlled this government and even each of the ministers. People will therefore have a choice of contributing to the financing of a political party that represents that authority and one vision of Canada, but not the one held by Quebec.

Once again, the approach of this government is to try to assume all power, use all the money, notwithstanding the current fiscal imbalance, in order to be able to encroach upon provincial areas of jurisdiction. Then there are others—certainly over 40% of the population—who will want to finance a party that will represent them.

Those people are, of course, sovereignists. They will have the choice of making contributions without any imbalance between a party that receives tens, or hundreds, of thousands of dollars and a party people want to finance because its ideology differs from that of the government. That is what this bill will allow. It will re-establish a balance between those wishing to finance a political party.

So, from the democratic point of view, people will feel far more protected. They will know where their money is going. It will serve to promote their ideas and to let them know what sort of future they will be leaving their children.

This situation does not involve everyone. Probably not all members on the other side are involved with the sponsorship scandals. It is not a hot potato any more. The proof is there and they are refusing to have a public inquiry.

I cannot understand the reaction of hon. members who have no connection whatsoever with this situation, which has been stirred up as the result of a program using the money of our fellow citizens of Quebec and of people everywhere in Canada. This money has allowed friends and companies with which the Liberals have connections to misuse the taxpayers' money.

You read the three Groupaction reports. That is only one of the files. We now know that the problem is even bigger. This is not just about reports that were paid for and never produced. Quite the opposite, some were produced, very well produced indeed.

This money was given to advertising agencies and then contracts were awarded to people with ties to these agencies, to people from their families. And it is not limited to the agencies. Yesterday, you heard question period, like I did. We learned that the minister responsible for this program helped out not only friends of the party, family members of advertising agencies' directors, and his friends, but also his son.

Imagine that. This minister was then given an ambassadorship in Copenhagen, Denmark. Incidentally, I was in Denmark, and do you want to know what people asked me about? They wanted to know if the issue involving Mr. Gagliano was resolved. Imagine the image Canada—but also indirectly, Quebec—is projecting having this type of person as an ambassador.

However, what is most ridiculous is that this person, Alfonso Gagliano, wants to become ambassador to the Vatican. After all of the proof tabled here in the House of Commons, which is now in the hands of the RCMP, they want to appoint this type of person to the Vatican. What kind of image will that project for Canada abroad?

You know as well as I do that a country's image is becoming more and more important given globalization. We saw what Canada did in its decision regarding Iraq. It is a good thing that the Bloc Quebecois was around and that Quebeckers took to the streets, because our government would have supported George Bush.

These are images that we project abroad. I must conclude, but I will come back to this. I think there is one more amendment that will be moved later today. I simply want to say that the time has come for public financing of political parties.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it astounding, this potentially being the last week of Parliament that we may be sitting, we are dealing with a bill that strictly is going to benefit the government in power, especially in light of this fact. Maybe the Liberals have not even noticed, because they are sitting here on their high horses, that Canadians have been facing crisis after crisis in recent months.

Across the country we have had the closure of the east coast cod fishery, SARS in the Toronto and Ontario area, mad cow in western Canada and the softwood lumber problem, which has been ongoing for years because of this lack of management on the other side. Yet the Prime Minister has avoided, evaded and outright ignored many of these concerns and these problems across the country. Instead his only priority is Bill C-24, which he is trying to push it through the House. It seems the only reason is to improve his own legacy and image.

Could the minister explain to Canadians why the attempts to clean up the Prime Minister's image have taken precedence over their health and livelihood?

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

Mr. Speaker, for the minister to say that the scandals and corruption in the Liberal Party are only in my mind is to deny the obvious at the very least.

During committee hearings on Bill C-24 the only witnesses who said that $1.50 per vote was not enough were witnesses from the Liberal Party of Canada. Every other witness thought that $1.50 was plenty of money. In fact a number of witnesses said that taxpayers should not give any money to political parties at all. It was only his trained seals who voted in committee to put that recommendation in the report that it should be raised to $1.75.

I want to ask the minister why it was raised from $1.50 to $1.75. Was it solely because the Liberal Party president, Stephen LeDrew, said that the Liberal Party would be bankrupt if it did not get more money? Now Mr. LeDrew did not share any financial information with us, so where is the justification for this increase in the subsidy from taxpayers to support the day to day operations of the Liberal Party?

How can the minister claim that this bill is about fairness and transparency when it is obvious to everyone that it is simply about using taxpayer money to fund the Liberal Party of Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, shame on the minister for introducing time allocation yet again.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that Bill C-24 is about ending corruption in the Liberal Party. Heaven knows there are plenty of examples we can use. There is the ongoing Shawinigate investigation, secret contracts given to relatives of Mr. Gagliano, millions wasted on non-existent reports and untendered advertising contracts, and all sorts of corporate welfare to companies like Bombardier.

I would like to know from the minister exactly how Bill C-24 will stop all of these scandals and the corruption in the Liberal Party of Canada. How will the snatching of $10 million a year from taxpayers to fund the day to day operations of the Liberal Party of Canada prevent the Prime Minister from giving lucrative contracts to his friends and relatives? How will Bill C-24 prevent ministers from awarding lucrative contracts to their sons, daughters, uncles and friends?

Is the bill actually not about hiding the corruption and scandals in the Liberal Party? How exactly will Bill C-24 clean up the corruption and scandals in that party over there?

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

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing), not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Committees of the House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 36th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding political financing. In this report we set out issues and concerns that the committee, or some of its members, had during consideration of Bill C-24. The intent is to signal possible areas for legislative change or future study.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to also present the 37th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate membership of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this 37th report later this day.

I would like to thank the staff and researchers of our committee for their extraordinary work in recent weeks on legislation that has been before our committee.

Canada Elections Act

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words on Bill C-24 in this stage of debate. I believe the bill was inevitable in our Canadian political experience. The process has been going on for quite some time and we could say that this is a bill whose time has come. This is probably one of the final stages of the public financing of elections in Canada.

The people of Canada approve of the bill. They approve moving the financing of Canadian elections from the private sector to the public sector. The people of Canada approve the principle of the bill and they approve the process that has been put in place in the House of Commons for this to occur.

With Bill C-24, we will have a clear, transparent and fair process to underwrite the cost of elections. The general public realizes this and fully endorses the transparency of this method of election financing.

To speak on Motion No. 11, the mandatory review of this bill after the next election is necessary because there are always things that we forgot. When we changed the enumeration process in elections, there were a lot of changes that had to be made afterward. That was a learning experience and I anticipate there will be some wrinkles in this bill which we have not thought of either.

The proposed motion will require a mandatory committee review and the bill will bring about important changes to the way political financing occurs. This is a very important reform that will have a significant impact on our political system. The new rules governing political contributions are essential to ensure that the system of political contributions is fully transparent at all levels and to remove any concerns or perception of undue influence by corporations, large donors or unions.

To achieve this purpose, the bill proposes comprehensive rules governing the financing of nomination contests, candidates, election district associations, registered parties, including provincial and territorial divisions of registered parties, as well as leadership contests.

The proposed bill provides for the reporting of contributions made to all political participants, including quarterly reports of contributions made to registered political parties, a measure that was introduced following suggestions in committee. It also provides for a regime where contributions are generally reserved to individuals up to a limit of $5,000 while at the same time allowing for more limited corporate and union contributions at the local level.

As a result of these new restrictions imposed by the bill on political contributions, a number of measures are proposed to ensure that the new regime is revenue neutral for political parties.

Let me simply review the most significant of these measures. The reimbursement of election expenses for registered parties would be increased from 22.5% to 50% with a one time reimbursement of 60% for the next election to assist parties as a transitional measure.

The threshold for candidates to qualify for the reimbursement of part of their election expenses would be lowered from 15% at present to 10%. The rate of reimbursement of the election expenses of candidates would increase by 50% to 60%, and the amendments to the Income Tax Act would double the amount of an individual's political contributions that is eligible for a 75% tax credit from $200 to $400. All other brackets of tax credit would be adjusted accordingly.

The proposed legislation will also introduce an annual allowance for registered parties of $1.75 per vote received. In this way the amount of public money given to a party under the allowance will be determined directly by Canadian electors. There will be in other words a direct link between a citizen's vote and the portion of his or her income tax that will be used in support of a democratic system. This may be a harbinger of proportional representation in our House of Commons but that is another debate.

The allowance of $1.75 per vote would be indexed to allow for inflation. Exceptionally, as a transitional measure, parties would receive the 2004 allowance in a lump sum as soon as practical after the coming into force of the bill, instead of quarterly as will be the case afterwards.

It is fair to say that the public financing provisions in the bill, and in particular the public allowance, are the provisions that have generated the most discussion here in the House of Commons.

Much has been said about the importance of ensuring adequate funding for political parties, given the key functions that they perform in a democratic system such as ours. Political parties serve to mobilize the electorate, provide an avenue for the representation of groups and articulation of their interests in concrete party policy proposals and their electoral platforms.

Strong parties and party organizations are critical to a healthy and dynamic democracy. If parties are not adequately funded, it is our entire electoral democracy that will be impoverished.

It must be remembered that political parties also play a fundamental role by providing a link between the state and its citizenry. They are essential structures for individual participation in our system of democratic governance. Providing basic funding for political parties allows competing political organizations to develop their platforms and programs. It allows them to conduct research and to develop policy options that citizens will then vote upon.

Bill C-24, by addressing on the one hand the concerns with the undue influence of corporations, as well as large individual donors and on the other hand, ensuring that parties have the necessary financial resources to perform their important function, will result in a healthier and more dynamic democracy.

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

Finally, we must recognize the enormous cost of running a political party in a modern democracy. Everyone in this House is certainly aware that the costs of running an effective party organization are rising, and this is a fact that was certainly made clear by party presidents who appeared before committee during the public hearings.

Particularly over the past few decades, parties have been faced with increasing costs of technology and the impact of media on party politics. It has been increasingly costly to maintain the necessary staff and institutionalized expertise that parties require to remain up to date on a wide range of issues and policy sectors.

The amendment to add polling to the definition of eligible expenditures is certainly a reflection of the modern cost of maintaining a political party. I do not believe there is any party that does not poll before, during and after elections, and this is a huge cost.

In addition, it must be recognized that the funding provided to parties to date, while beneficial, has had the shortcoming of kicking in after an election. As we are all aware, the functions of a party do not begin and end with an election. They are ongoing and that is why the public allowance is so essential to these reforms.

As an added benefit, the public allowance would be based on the number of votes received in the previous election. If a member has no public support, then there is no public financing. This should result in the encouragement of a greater connection between Canadians and parties. At the same time, we must not forget that there will be a need for parties to raise private funds from individuals, and this will also encourage them to maintain a vibrant connection with individual Canadians.

In conclusion, there are many important reasons for the public financing of political parties. Public financing contributes to a level playing field and an equality of opportunity and electoral competitiveness. It also allows parties to compete effectively regardless of the socio-economic condition of their supporters.

Public funding strengthens the autonomy of parties, reduces the perception of some groups that have undue influence and enhances financial transparency.

Public funding also provides parties with resources that are essential for democratic activities. There are at least equally important reasons for the measures dealing with the limits on contributions and the rules governing transparency.

Together these different rules will have a profound effect on our system of political financing but will in the short and long term be good for Canada.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to enter the debate tonight on Bill C-24. It seems a little ironic that again, as we approach the summer session, we are debating another bill that has a huge impact on the way political parties conduct themselves. It reminds me of the MPs' pay raise that we dealt with a couple of short years ago which we rammed through just before we closed for summer break.

We have to wonder why we are discussing a bill, which would have such a dramatic effect on the way political parties conduct their business and receive their funding, in the last week and a half or two weeks of the sitting of the House with closure over our heads as to how much debate we might have.

The bill, of course, is a response to a perception. We have heard a lot of members use that language tonight: a perception that maybe something is wrong in the way that huge corporate and union donations are made to political parties and whether that might influence government decisions. We might wonder where people get this perception from.

Certainly we know that the outgoing Prime Minister, who has benefited all the way through his career from corporate donations for his party, now seems determined that his successor, be it the member for LaSalle—Émard or one of his colleagues and competitors, will not benefit in the same way. Perhaps that is part of a legacy that he is trying to leave behind.

However where did this perception come from? We have to wonder why Canadians have become so cynical.

In the short time that I have been in the House there has been a neverending stream of very bad news coming out of the government regarding dollars: the sponsorship programs for advertising, Groupe Everest, Groupaction, huge government contracts for advertising for very questionable venues, some of which never even happened; and huge awards to companies that make big donations to a political party, in this case the government side, of course the government having the power to administer public funds.

Let us look at a paper that I was reading on the way in. It is from a couple of days ago. The headline reads “Refugee board member tied to bribe scam”. Is it any wonder that Canadians have lost confidence in the way the political process works in Canada and the influence the government comes under?

If that is not enough, in this morning's paper we read that the son of the former public accounts minister, the minister who was shipped off to Denmark, may be appointed as an advisor on Canada's behalf to the Vatican, if I understood that right, and maybe I did not. The son of the former public accounts minister worked for a printing company that received contracts from these same sponsorship and advertising companies that received large government grants and then money goes to family members or into funds that go back to the Liberal Party.

We know the governing party is not the only party that has been guilty of this. I think the government before was also quite well-known for a similar process. Therefore this bill is an attempt to assure the public that something is being done to rectify this situation.

My concern is that it is a nasty piece of business that will in fact put the taxpayers on the tab to support political parties that they may not endorse. While we respect all members in the House as having honourable intentions, we have had some very bad examples of integrity not being followed through. I think when the hon. member for Elk Island spoke a few moments ago he talked about integrity and the fact that people either had it or they did not. I think the language he used was that putting this kind of arbitrary limit on how much one could be bought for would probably not have the desired outcome.

However something that I have noticed since I have been in the House is the disturbing trend that I see in so many of the bills that come before the House, where the language purports to do one thing but in reality the effect of the bill will be something else, such as the child pornography bill that we dealt with recently in which the government said that we would be taking away artistic merit.

In my part of the country on the west coast we had the John Robin Sharpe case. People were outraged that a man was in possession of vile images of children being abused sexually. The judges refused to deal with it because of artistic merit. Now the government has moved to correct it because the public was sensitized to artistic merit.

However, it replaced the artistic merit defence with the defence of public good. This will sadly allow lawyers to make the same argument that a man who is abusing this graphic material which depicts the abuse of children is somehow satisfying himself and therefore not acting out his feelings on somebody, and that maybe there is some public good in that.

I do not think it is good enough. The government says it will get tough on the people who commit these crimes by increasing maximum penalties. We all know that the courts hardly ever impose maximum penalties. If the government were to get tough it would increase minimum penalties. What is wrong with the picture when the song says we are doing something but the reality says the same things will go on under different labels?

The Prime Minister said not long ago that he defended the interests of his riding all the time and he has nothing else to say about it. It is the role of a member of Parliament. He did not deny calling the head of the federal Business Development Bank of Canada in 1997 to press for a loan of nearly $1 million for a hotel owner in the Saint-Maurice riding, a Shawinigan accountant who recently pleaded guilty to fraudulently syphoning money to an off-shore bank account in the Bahamas.

Then there was the Grand-Mère fiasco and François Beaudoin of the Business Development Bank of Canada stating he followed the normal stages for a loan authorization, but without the intervention of the federal MP the project would never have been accepted. We know that the Prime Minister, in his famous story about the Grand-Mère, had shares that he sold but for which he never received any payment. He had an interest when he was lobbying for the inn next to his golf course. It seems kind of funny. If somebody sold an asset for $300,000 and seven years later had not been paid, did they really sell anything at all and indeed did any transaction take place regardless of what was written on a piece of paper that was handwritten and not witnessed?

We have a Youth Criminal Justice Act and frankly, I see the same problems there as I see in Bill C-24. The old law was dysfunctional, but the new law will be no better. In fact, it is likely to make things even worse because there are no provisions to notify the public of dangerous young offenders. There are no provisions to assist young people under 12 who get into trouble with the law. It does nothing for victims' rights.

People are frustrated when they see a message that says we are going one way and in reality it does not seem to pan out.

We are debating Motion No. 11 in Group No. 2. It is a motion that authorizes a review of the act to assess the impact after the first election. I suppose it is a good idea that we should assess the impact of Bill C-24 after the first election. The problem is that all of a sudden we have the taxpayers on the hook to replace the money that people formerly gave voluntarily to the party of their choice.

It is interesting that the first contribution from the taxpayers is due in January 2004. That is very convenient because the governing party has a substantial debt right now that it wants to look after. There will be another donation some months later, in April. That will put a lot of money into the coffers in preparation for the next election. It is based on the percentage of the vote in the last election.

Taxpayers should not be on the hook to support a party to which they may be opposed philosophically. It does not matter which party it is. I am sure there are members opposite who feel as badly about supporting some of the parties on this side of the House as some of the people who support us would feel about supporting government members on the other side. People should be free to give where their heart is and to the party they support, but they should not be forced to use their tax dollars to support political processes that they may not endorse.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to say a few words to Bill C-24, particularly on Motion No. 11 of Group No. 2, which helps to alleviate recent concerns about this bill. Of course, it will always be possible, even considering the financial implications of the bill, to have a review which might be very constructive.

I am all the more happy as some members, although a minority, and in particular one of our Canadian Alliance colleagues, consider this exercise a waste of time. As if we could not deal with the Canadian beef issue and the problems it creates, the SARS outbreak and, at the same time, the government's credibility.

This is an extremely serious matter. This is why I was somewhat saddened to hear my colleague from the Alliance say that it was a waste of time to try to improve the perception our fellow citizens have of politicians. I deliberately use the word perception, because I have the opportunity, every day, to live in the real world and it is not true that our colleagues, from whatever party, are not doing their work effectively and honestly.

This is why I was happy to hear my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, with whom I have the opportunity to work as a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, pay tribute to the Prime Minister who said that the cleaning up of politics had been enhanced in Quebec by the action of former premier René Lévesque.

The Prime Minister truly deserved that tribute and still does, because it would have been very easy for him to give up. This bill still is not an easy one. It went through an extremely difficult infancy. Yet, we needed someone who could stay the course. We needed someone who was able to step back and tell us all, members of the government as well as members of other political parties, “It appears essential to me, with this bill, to take a major step towards the cleaning up of political party funding all across the country”. However, this does not preclude us from doing other things.

However, it is effectively a bill that has emerged following the political experience of all members of this Parliament, including ourselves. It is obvious that, with this bill, things that we have experienced and that we are experiencing now will not be experienced in the future, because of the constraints of the bill.

Personally, I feel that it is really something that the Prime Minister has stayed the course and has kept it on the government's agenda, despite universal protest. I repeat that it would have been very easy for the Prime Minister, who no longer has electoral ambitions, to say, “We will put this aside; there is too much criticism internally and externally”. Despite it all, he has stayed the course and kept it on the agenda, and we will reach a compromise that will reassure all our fellow citizens.

There is something wrong when, with respect to a profession that I consider very noble, serving as a member of the House of Commons, the reputation of all of my colleagues, as well as my own—we must include ourselves in this—ranks lowest in surveys. There is something wrong when all those who work in politics are despised and considered dishonest.

This is why Bill C-24 will send a crystal clear message, with major constraints imposed on corporations and unions. This will affect all political parties. It is not a waste of money to include public financing; it is an investment in the credibility of all politicians. This will put all future parliaments and governments in a better position, I dare say, to get involved even more effectively in issues that are extremely important in the environmental or health sectors than we do now.

In every respect, this bill will give credibility to all Canadian politicians and that makes me extremely proud. That is democracy, but democracy has a cost. It is much more costly for a government to lose its credibility or for politicians not to have any credibility than to receive $20 to $25 million annually. In any event, such an investment is largely shouldered by our fellow citizens when contributions come from corporations. At the end of the day, it is always our fellow citizens who pay.

I think that Bill C-24 is a major step forward. As my colleagues pointed out earlier, look at what is happening with political financing in the United States. Look at the lobbies in the United States who, with their the financial clout, have direct access to all the political parties. We see this daily in all the difficulties in our trade relations with the United States in several key sectors. We realize that it is not always political objectivity that predominates, but the power of lobbyists.

That is why I am convinced that Canada, which is a model throughout the world in several areas including our political democracy, will continue to play an even greater role by cleaning up political financing. I am convinced that the Canadian example will have an even greater impact with our American neighbours and our fellow citizens of the world because there will be legislation governing political financing. I think this is extremely important.

That is why I thought it was deplorable of one of our Canadian Alliance colleagues to say it was a waste of time to legislate political financing. In a democratic country there is nothing more important than a government with full credibility to take action in key sectors for our future.

That is why the Prime Minister felt this bill was important from the beginning. He could not have been elected for 40 years if he did not have certain qualities or judgment. We have to applaud him for that as my Bloc Quebecois colleague pointed out earlier. It took a lot of perseverance and judgment to be able to bring this bill forward near the end of his term.

I am convinced that all political parties and all politicians in this country will benefit from it because it will give us more credibility with the people whom we represent. I sincerely believe that the great majority of my colleagues in this House do extraordinary work for their constituents, regardless of political stripe. However, unfortunately, in politics as is often the case in other areas, perception is a vehicle that can be very harmful. This is why it was important for us to debate this issue in the House.

I hope that this bill, which will considerably increase our personal credibility as politicians and also that of all political parties, will be passed almost unanimously. The perception that Canadians will have is that we are financing, in part, our democracy. Increasing our credibility has no price since it will enable us to manage, to administer and to take action on issues where a government really needs to have the confidence of the people.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to this issue, which I find most important. I am convinced that Motion No. 11 in Group No. 2 will help reassure those who had concerns. In the very short term, after the first election that will be conducted under the new legislation, we, as parliamentarians, will have the opportunity to make further changes to the legislation if necessary.

What is interesting is that the government is not being pretentious. I think that it is showing objectivity and understanding. I believe that passing this motion will enable us to say so. As parliamentarians, we have not often see flawless bills. This bill will not be flawless, but we will have the opportunity to improve it as we go along.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise once again in debate on Bill C-24 at report stage, specifically to the amendments in Group No. 2 that have been permitted by the Speaker, although in fact we are talking about a group consisting of only one amendment so it is a bit of a misnomer.

In a way, the amendment before us is a no-brainer. It just makes perfectly good sense that after Bill C-24 comes into effect, and after we have been through a federal election in which its new political financing provisions have actually been implemented, we would then have a thorough review of the impact of the provisions of the bill. As my colleague the member for Palliser pointed out, many amendments were brought forward in committee. A number of proposed amendments, some of them proposed by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, for example, were not supported or have been disallowed for technical reasons, I think it would be fair to say, by the Speaker.

This does not mean that some of the very concerns raised in debate as the bill has proceeded through the stages of discussion do not have every bit as much merit today as they did when they were put forward. Perhaps following the next election, when we have had experience under the act, it may become clear to some members that some of those amendments ought to have been supported in the first place and, upon review, there will be an opportunity for reconsideration of some of them. It is just good sense and obviously a parliamentary practice that should be built into this and every piece of legislation. I and my colleagues of course will be supporting this provision.

Having said that, it seems to me that this is an appropriate occasion on which to say once again how regrettable and lamentable it is that some of the obvious flaws in the bill are now not going to be dealt with and resolved.

I go right back to the first principle, a principle that the New Democratic Party supports and one that I personally and absolutely support, and that is to eliminate big money and undue influence from politics.

Also a very important point, and one that I think the previous Alliance speaker absolutely misses, is that it is absolutely necessary to be concerned about integrity in politics and to be concerned about eliminating undue influence from whatever sources and for whatever purposes, but it is also critically important to deal with the perception of possible undue influence and the perception of practices that are simply not supportable. For that reason, it is extremely regrettable, it seems to me, that when we are dealing with a bill for which the purpose is straightforward, sound and very supportable, there are a couple of violations of the fundamental principle that go to the heart of the bill.

Frankly, we have been very frustrated and Canadians will not be the least impressed that on the one hand we have the government bringing forward legislation, and it is now obvious that it intends to invoke closure and push ahead and vote time allocation because it is hell-bent to get this legislation on the books, but on the other hand the bill actually does not do what the government said its purpose was in the first instance, and that is to level the playing field, to eliminate contributions both from corporations and from unions. In fact, it does no such thing.

Not only does it not fully exclude donations from corporations, it gives an absolute advantage to corporations: discriminatory treatment to the potentially hundreds of thousands of corporations that can in fact avail themselves of the provisions of the bill to donate to individual political candidates. Is the same treatment accorded to trade unions? No, it is not. We have in the one instance the potential for every single Tim Hortons franchisee in this country, for example, to donate to the political candidate of his or her choice, but absolutely no comparable provision that would allow a union local to contribute to a candidate of its choice. That seems to be profoundly discriminatory and, as I say, a complete contradiction and contravention of the stated purpose of the bill.

Let me make it really clear. I am not taking aim at Tim Hortons. I am actually a bit of a Tim Hortons addict and I admit freely to that, but I cannot for the life of me understand this. Let me take Charlottetown as an example. There are seven Tim Hortons franchises in Charlottetown alone, seven in one riding. It is possible that all seven could be owned by separate franchisees. What that would mean if all seven of those Tim Hortons franchises in Charlottetown were owned by seven different franchisees is that $7,000 could be donated just by Tim Hortons franchisees to one candidate.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this certainly does not happen to me often, but I have to admit that I agree with all of the latter part of the speech by the government House leader.

Bill C-24 is an important bill that will improve the conditions in which democracy is exercised, despite what some hon. members may say. I must say that I never expected, in this House, to hear the Prime Minister praise the democratic value of the legislation passed in Quebec, at the instigation of René Lévesque, concerning public financing of political parties.

The Prime Minister of Canada has recognized this as a model law and he wants to follow its lead. I hope that, by means of the amendments, he will follow it all the way through to the end, and that the only people able to donate to election campaigns and political parties will be individual citizens, and they alone.

We Quebeckers do not see this as a leap into the unknown, as it appears to be for some other hon. members in this House. This bill, Bill C-24, is not a leap into the unknown for us, because for years, since 1977 in fact, we have been living with a law that forces people who want to work in politics—not just the candidates, but also those who work within a party, in a riding or at the national level—to go out and meet the citizens, and talk to them about what they are doing and what they plan to do, and listen to them, too.

The rewards might be $5, $10, $20, sometimes $100 or $200, but there are a lot of small amounts in party financing. That this should be so is extremely healthy. When a party begins to do this less often and relies more and more on big donors, it seems that its own internal democracy and its ability to be close to the people and represent them well is also called into question.

In view of that, it appears extremely clear that the system that will be in place until the bill is passed and has allowed corporations in general and big corporations in particular to help fund election campaigns, political parties and riding associations is such that political parties, candidates, MPs and organization executives tend not to give the same consideration to someone who makes a $5, $10, $15 or $20 donation as to someone who gives $5,000, $10,000 and sometimes more.

Understandably a candidate who needs a lot of money to run might be extremely sensitive to the arguments of an individual or a corporation able to give $5,000. This is human and the law puts people in that situation, namely not to give the same consideration to all citizens but to be more sensitive to the arguments of those whose money talks and gets them heard.

There is another harmful consequence: when citizens see that their party is financed by corporations, if they are not wealthy, they tend not to contribute. They rationalize this by saying that parties get money from businesses anyway. They know that businesses can in turn deduct it from their taxes one way or another. In people's minds, it is clear that funds do not come from the businesses themselves but from their profits, which in turn come from the public's pockets and from tax credits.

This approach is bad in every respect and has been condemned repeatedly, so much so that today we are happy to see the government finally come up with this bill. It can be improved of course, for instance, by eliminating the provisions that still allow corporations to give $1,000. Why keep this amount? It will be difficult to enforce within provincially and across Canada. Also political parties will find it difficult to deal with. To which riding will the money go or will it only go to the parties?

There is no real advantage but a series of disadvantages. The main disadvantage is that it corrupts the principle slightly. But for what purpose? Again there is no advantage, only disadvantages.

We heard all kinds of things in this House, for example that debating this bill is a waste of time. I am sorry but I am extremely sensitive to the plight of workers who are affected by the softwood lumber issue, and businesses as well, especially small and medium size businesses. It is a very important issue, but it is not something that needs to be debated in the House; it is something that requires action by the government, which we have been calling for constantly.

This bill, like many others, is our responsibility. We must create the proper conditions for democracy so that all Canadians can be heard equally no matter which party they belong to or what member represents them. This seems extremely important to us. In the end, it will make a difference. When the government House leader says that it will be one of the most important bills, I think that he is right because indeed—and that is what he truly feels—it will change the relationship between political parties in this country and their members as well as all Canadians.

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, are pleased because we know that, overall, this bill will improve the way democracy works in this country. Our calls did not fall on deaf ears; Quebec was heard. As my colleague was saying, this bill will help all voters to regain confidence in their representatives, knowing that, to finance their election campaign, they will not have to give in to the demands of those who would offer them thousands of dollars.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to speak to the second group of amendments.

I have listened attentively to the speech just given by the hon. member. I know he feels very profoundly about his constituents. I know he works very hard for them. However in his speech he has not stated correctly the position of all of us in the House.

That being said, I will be the first to admit that he works hard for his constituents. I remember last summer when we had a crisis of another kind in his part of the country. He and I were speaking to each other during the summer months from our respective homes, working on such things as the Hay West initiative. I know how hard he and another member from Saskatchewan worked.

The Saskatchewan farmers were in my office last week. Again, we were discussing not only the problems they have now, which are very real and very serious, but we were also discussing the issue of last year in which constituents from my constituency, your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I can address you as such for the purpose of identifying your constituency because your constituents were very helpful, and those from a number of areas.

I do not agree with some of the things that are being said now. The issue of the legislation in the House and the issues of the overall agenda of the government are not identical. Obviously a minister negotiating with a province to obtain help for a group of people is not necessarily a legislative initiative. Where the two coincide is in question period where members, opposition members in a greater number but government members too or government supporting members, question the government to ensure that it does what is best for Canadians. That is done by question period. That is done by the statements that we make in the House of Commons. That is done by the private members' initiatives that people produce from time to time on a whole variety of issues and so on. That is done by the committee work that we all do around here. Countless committee reports are tabled in the House of Commons. Issues are discussed. Committees increasingly travel throughout the country and listen to Canadians.

You and I, Mr. Speaker, were just recently in the U.K. looking at what its Parliament does, and the same in Scotland. I think everyone who went there came to the conclusion that although the U.K. Parliament does some things better than us, our committee system is by far superior to its committee system. That is much to the credit of members on all sides of the House in terms of the good work they do.

The issue of marijuana legislation is not one that somehow interferes with how ministers are trying to help out with issues, whether it is SARS, the BSE issue in agriculture or anything else. A bill was introduced and put on the Order Paper by the minister. We have not yet debated it, so obviously it has not taken debating time away from anything else. That is the marijuana bill.

In terms of the bill that is before us today, Bill C-24, and the amendment that we are discussing at the present time, it is designed to make this great institution even better. I do not apologize for that. I think it ultimately serves all Canadians better when the legislation that governs how we are elected is better.

I feel that this legislation will improve our system. In 1973-74 there was no legislation on political party financing. Later there were strict laws on spending limits. I will use my case as an example since it is the one I know best. I come from a socio-economic background where it would have been impossible to become a member of parliament a generation ago. Yet, today I have the opportunity to serve my country.

Who would have thought that a busboy at the parliamentary restaurant, who dropped out of high school, would become a member of parliament let alone a minister or Leader of the Government in the House of Commons?

Yet, I had this opportunity. I may have worked hard, I may have been lucky, but for the most part it is the law that allows me to be here because I did not have to be rich to be a candidate. It was not a prerequisite as it is in some democracies, or so-called democracies.

Our neighbours to the South hold some great democratic values for which I congratulate them. But they are still not well endowed when it comes to democratic values. My test of democracy is not, for instance, met by the news that Senator Hillary Clinton spent the equivalent of what is spent by all political parties in Canada for the 301 ridings in this country to get herself elected.

The bill we have before us at this time will help improve this system. Not for me, who has been in one elected position or another for the past 27 years, but for the future generations. I think that I have a reasonable chance of getting the nod from my party for the next election, and maybe even a reasonable chance of getting re-elected, but those who come after me are entitled to a better situation than I have known. They are the ones I hope will benefit from this opportunity, along with the institution in which we all sit.

Now for the clause in question, which we are addressing. Its objective is to clarify the fact that, after the next election, there will of course be a review of the legislation. That is already there, but I have proposed an amendment. Its purpose is to respond to the concerns of the committee, by stating that, next time, this review must address the financial aspect we are adopting at this time, today, tomorrow and in the days to come. We must be sure that, should the formula require adjustment, improvement, additions or deletions, or anything else, the steps required to make such major improvements will be there. The amendment in question is in Group No. 2, which we are discussing, nothing else.

Back to what I was saying before, with all due respect to certain of my colleagues—particularly the previous speaker—I disagree strongly with him when he says this is not a significant bill. I believe it will likely be one of the most important bills this Parliament enacts.

Those who produced the original act in the 1970s have produced a very important piece of legislation, and so is Bill C-2, which was introduced in a previous Parliament to prohibit this kind of control which was impending by third parties, these so-called public interest groups which were influencing the political system by claiming to be running parallel campaigns.

That is when the National Citizen's Coalitions of this world were stopped. There is a case pending before the courts and we will see what comes of it. I will not discuss the details of the case because I do not want to prejudice the outcome, but I think that this is another important bill for democratizing our institutions. Today, we have Bill C-24 before us and we will conclude debate.

I urge my hon. colleagues to support the last step we have to take to complete this debate, that is, take the required votes and then pass the bill in the House. This will ensure that it will become the law of the land for generations to come, so that our institution can be increasingly one which represents all the citizens of our country, men and women, regardless of their ethnic origin or whatever group they belong to, allowing them to at least aspire to get elected. If they are as lucky as I was, they will get elected to represent their fellow citizens in this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the amendment being proposed, we are calling for a review after the implementation of this bill and it is first used following an election. Indeed I can support that kind of amendment. However, when I look at the bill in its entirety, I do not think for a second that there should be any question as to whether this review should begin immediately. The bill needs a lot of fixing, to put it in my language. There are a lot of things that need to be done to the bill to make it better.

I find it amazing that there are people in the House who think that integrity can be legislated. Have they not learned by now that integrity is a heart disease, that a person has the will and desire to be honest? Of course, I have not seen that happen in regard to some of the activities that we have experienced over the last 10 years and even before that in some cases.

Bill C-24 really is not in the hearts of all Canadians at the moment. The day will come when a lot of Canadians, after realizing that they will be putting $22 million of their own money into a program to finance all political parties, will be a little upset, myself included. It upsets me to think for one minute that one penny of my money would go to support a party like the Liberal Party that has been running the country for the last nine years. It makes me ill to think that any of my money would go to support the kinds of things the Liberals have been trying to promote over the years and the kinds of actions and inactions they have taken in regard to a lot of issues that are very questionable with respect to honesty and integrity.

I would like my money to go toward what I believe to be a party that is a principled party. I want to make sure that happens. I want to be part of it.

This bill is not going to sit too well with Canadians, but that is not even the issue in Wild Rose and I know it is pretty well true across the country, particularly for members on all sides of the House of Commons where the agriculture industry is part of their riding. Today, because of mad cow disease an industry has been halted in its entirety and we can no longer export our beef. That industry is one of the biggest providers of work and labour for so many people. With the hurting that is going on, does anyone think that people really care whether we are going to pass this bill or whether we are going to do anything about it? Does anyone think people are really concerned about that today?

For three years the riding of Wild Rose and surrounding ridings suffered through a drought while the government did not do one thing, not one thing, in terms of the tragedy people were facing. We had music concerts and bingos. All kinds of fundraising took place by two Canadians who wanted to help their fellow people who were suffering because of the drought. They were doing their very best. Farmers from Ontario donated hay and did their very best to get it out west. There was cooperation across the nation. What did the government do in regard to that drought? Nothing. It did not provide one cent.

Liberal members sit over there and gloat about a bill like this, when people out there now cannot even move the cattle. After they finally got some rain and it looked like they were going to get some hay, now they have to just sit on it. The bankruptcies are beginning, folks. It is not going to take long before they are really hurting. Instead of dealing with a problem of that nature in the House of Commons, we are debating how we can squeeze another $20 million or so out of taxpayers to try to buy some honesty through legislation. It is disgraceful.

People are hurting out there because of the softwood lumber issue. It has been happening for 10 years. When are all 301 of us in the House of Commons going to sit down and talk about the disasters that are happening to our people? Let us sit down and work together to solve some of these issues.

But no, we will debate this bill for a while, until the House leader for the Liberals gets tired debating it. Then he will run in and put closure on the issue, which he is very capable of doing. It has been done 100 times or so. He has already done it on this bill. It is finished after a few more hours of debate. It does not matter. I would just as soon shut down debate on the bill altogether and get down to some serious problems.

What a great week it was when I was back here the last time. It was a great week. There were all kinds of difficulties facing the nation. What did we do? We sat in here and talked about marijuana. For crying out loud, is that really a serious problem?

A member over there is making fun of what I am saying. He does not care about all these other things. He cares about Bill C-24. Other issues keep coming up day after day and in question period we listen to some minister or parliamentary secretary say “We are reviewing the situation. We are keeping on top of it. We are not doing anything. Nothing is happening, but we are reviewing it”.

One day the Canadian people will wake up and say that enough is enough of that kind of government. One day the Canadian people will really want to see a wakening in this place and will say “You people are there to look after our needs. When are you going to start doing it?”

Right now in my riding, there are many ranchers, feedlot owners, truckers who cannot move their trucks and everything is stopped dead after three years of drought and we sit in here debating how to squeeze another bunch of money out of taxpayers to make the elections honest. Elections can be very honest. It is unfortunate for the Canadian people that some of the people they elect are not very honest.

Of course all kinds of investigations are going on to determine whether or not what I say is true. Then we are investigating ourselves and I am sure we will get to the truth of the matter.

I would like to see a bunch of people in here become a principled group, principled to the idea that by golly it is time that we started serving the Canadians who pay our wages, who cause these lights to be on. When are we going to start doing that? When will the day come when we decide we are going to be a real democracy and someone will not march in from behind the curtain on that side of the House and bring in closure on practically everything important that does come up?

Year after year, the person who brings in closure on behalf of the government is the same one who once stood on this side ranting and raving about the terrible way that the Conservatives of the past brought in closure time and time again. On and on it goes, year after year.

We can talk all we want about this election bill. Right now I personally do not give a hoot about it and neither do all the 180,000 people who live in my riding. They really do not care. There is a lot of hurting going on out there. The softwood lumber industry is suffering to no end. Agriculture is our top industry and it is really hurting. My constituents have sent me to Ottawa to help with these problems and I have to come in and listen to a bunch of garbage on things about how we can make ourselves honest. People ought to try being that way once and see if that works. Be honest about what we are here for.

Forget about marijuana for a while, put it aside. It has got a problem of its own. Leave it where it is at and let the police take care of it. Let us start looking after our people. We will get down to those issues when the time is right. Right now I prefer to look after the people of this land and it is beginning to really hurt.

If members who have people in their ridings who depend on the cattle industry to support their way of life, their lives and farms and those members sit in the House of Commons and do not do anything to help that situation, then they should hang their heads in shame. As for me, those are the issues I want to spend my time on, but I will not be allowed to because we have to talk about things like this bill.

Congratulations to all members of the House of Commons. They should ignore the real issues, enjoy themselves and have fun because summer is coming. We will all enjoy summer but I can guarantee there will be a whole pile of people out there who will not if we do not start to do something today.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We actually levelled the playing field in the most literal sense. In fact, we went further. There is no public funding to reimburse or offset the lack of contributions or the reduction in contributions from labour or business. That is election campaign financing in its purest form. Only a registered voter is allowed to make campaign contributions.

It was a bill brought in by the NDP, the very first bill it introduced when it formed the government in 1999. Even then, those individuals are limited to a $3,000 maximum. No private individual can donate more than $3,000. That, I believe, is taking big money out of politics, and that, I believe, does send the message that no one in this country should be able to buy an election campaign. I am very proud that our provincial government did introduce those changes.

As well, however, I am not disappointed to be dealing in the House of Commons today with legislation that is at least similar. I believe the NDP will be able to support Bill C-24. We are optimistic that there will be amendments above and beyond Motion No. 11, which we are dealing with today. We support the idea that there should be a mandatory compulsory review after the first experience. That is only logical.

We are critical, though, of the fact that other amendments were not deemed votable at report stage, specifically the amendment dealing with trade union contributions and corporate contributions. We do not mind the limitation. We are not objecting to the limitation as such, but we are objecting to the fact that under Bill C-24 a trade union is defined in a way that is different from the way a trade union is defined in the Canada Labour Code. As such, only the national organization would be able to make a single contribution of $1,000 in most cases.

There might be a national union with 200 local unions across the country in the same organization. Under the Canada Labour Code they are considered individual trade unions, but for the purposes of Bill C-24 that large trade union would be able to make only one contribution of $1,000, whereas the inverse is not true for corporations. For instance, a corporation that has 200 franchises would be able to make a $1,000 contribution from each one of those 200 franchises. We find this fundamentally unfair, for two reasons.

First, the definition of a trade union is not consistent in the legislation. The definition in Bill C-24 should be the same as the definition in the Canada Labour Code. Second, it is a severe disadvantage in terms of individual trade union locals, which may be fairly large entities unto themselves. There may be 3,000 members in that local union, but they will not be able to make any political campaign contribution; only the parent organization, the national body, will be able to make a political contribution. That is one thing that we in the NDP wish to see addressed in the bill in the interests of fairness.

The second thing we will be speaking to is the idea of trust funds. There will be limitations put in place for all future contributions made to trust funds. After Bill C-24 comes into effect, it will have to be disclosed who is making those contributions to the trust funds, but that rule is not retroactive.

There are substantial trust funds in place already that members of Parliament have developed personally and that provincial wings of political parties have developed and of which we have no record. We will not be able to trace who made those contributions. That is going to be the subject of an interesting debate later on when we get to those amendments.

Suffice it to say that Canadians do not want to go toward the American model. I believe, and others may disagree with my personal opinion, that big money has ruined American politics. I do not say that lightly and I do not say that to be hypercritical in any way of our American friends. It is just that for a person to seek a seat in congress in this day and age, one needs $1 million or even $2 million to run a successful campaign. To run for the senate, one could need $5 million or $10 million. There was one woman in California who spent $20 million and did not succeed.

When big money gets into politics to that degree, people cannot start their political lives without owing an enormous debt to financial backers. As well, elected politicians spend most of their time gathering money for their next challenge two or four years down the road. To put it quite simply, money influences politics far too much in that model. I am proud that we are taking steps to try to diminish that here today.

I cannot help but think what a difference it would have made in some of the more famous scandals that we have seen lately, for instance the public works scandals with the advertising sponsorship contracts, if there had been rules in place that businesses could not donate money to political parties, period. There would be far less incentive for governments to give out money for nothing contracts to friendly businesses who may make political campaign contributions, thinking that they will then get access to a greater number of contracts from the government. That kind of thing would have been self-correcting were it in place years ago.

We would hope that the changes we are making today will put a stop at least to some of that kind of corrupt allocation of public works contracts. We are not sure. As I say, we are still critical that there are ways now within Bill C-24 for businesses to make campaign contributions in such a way that they could--and I am not saying they will, but they could--influence government decision making. Surely what this bill is all about is to get big money out of politics.

I see I only have one minute left, but suffice it to say I am very proud that the province of Manitoba has seen fit to adopt what I believe is the purest and cleanest democracy in the country. Only a registered voter should be able to make a political campaign contribution, and even that campaign contribution should have a limit. The limit set in Manitoba is $3,000 maximum. In that way we are much less likely to run the risk of undue influence by big money in Canadian politics.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-24 at report stage although there is only one amendment in Group No. 2, which deals with the mandatory review to be undertaken after the first election conducted under these new election financing rules.

I am particularly pleased to join the debate today being a member of Parliament from Manitoba, where we recently conducted our first election campaign under new election financing rules. I should point out that in our province of Manitoba under our new election financing rules, I believe it is the purest and cleanest democracy in the country as it stands today, for the simple reason that the NDP government in Manitoba passed a law indicating that only a registered voter can make a political campaign contribution. There are no contributions at all allowed from businesses or trade unions.

When we made those changes we made them completely and absolutely.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are now discussing Motion No. 11 for Bill C-24. This motion calls for a review of the act after the next general election. That is the purpose of today's discussion. However, we may need to broaden the scope of the debate.

Before going any further, I would like to point out that my colleagues' main argument was that we are asking taxpayers to fund, in part, political parties' operations under the new bill. He said that we would be adding an additional burden to taxpayers, who are already overtaxed. I completely agree with him; people are much too heavily taxed and yes, the government could make efforts to reduce taxes, which would be even better.

However, the argument put forward by my colleague is a false one. In fact, if a corporation or a company contributes $100,000 to a political party, for example, if a big bank contributes $100,000 to the Liberal Party fund—as has occurred in the past and as is still the case today—this bank is not creating this money out of nothing—it will simply take this $100,000 and include it in its public relations expenses or other expenses. This way, it pays less tax on its profits.

Moreover, the company will ask users to foot the bill because companies make money by selling services or products. So, if the $100,000 is part of this company's overhead costs, it is obvious that the company will increase its prices accordingly. Companies do not create money out of nothing; they provide services. That is how it works. It seems to me that this argument is a somewhat spurious one.

As for the other major element of Bill C-24, I would like to draw a comparison with Quebec. Quebec has had legislation on political party financing for quite a while. We should look at how it has worked, and see what good it has done Quebec in terms of cleaning up politics. If we compare this system to the Canadian system, it is clear that there is a very serious problem with party financing in the latter. One need only look at the current leadership race.

Since we have a bill before us, we can ask ourselves, for instance, which candidate will win the leadership race. The answer is simple: the one who raised the most money. But at present, this is hardly clean money; it is money raised in secret. There is therefore a need to make these activities transparent.

We could look at the United States and how the presidency campaigns are run in that country; we would see all the problems they have had in the past.

At present, if we look at the situation in Canada, I mentioned the leadership race, but we could talk about the overall operation of political parties. To say that political parties are not influenced by the large companies or the individuals who contribute the most to their election fund would be a lie. To say that a member would not be influenced by the fact that a company contributed $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 to his or her election campaign, would be to lie to the public.

Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Bill C-24. We had hoped that the measures in this bill would follow Quebec's lead, so as to make it more acceptable to the general public and ensure that our democracy can truly express its will. From the beginning, Quebec's political party financing legislation was recognized throughout North America, Europe and the world as being very forward-looking legislation that cleaned up politics. It is a model for all liberal democracies in North America and Europe. It is a model, but we think too that it needs to be perfected, amended and regularly reviewed, and Motion No. 11 would ensure that Canada's political party financing legislation is subject to regular review.

We want this legislation to be improved. We do not want business to have the right to make contributions. The only way to renew the public's interest in democracy is to allow it to participate and to see that it, not just business, can have a real influence on political parties.

Over the years, this aspect of our democracies got off track. From the moment that businesses had access to political party financing—perhaps right from the start, but it was less obvious before; this has become more evident over the years—they have become increasingly important to political parties and have had more and more influence on our democracy, which has meant that the influence of individuals has decreased.

This must be rectified immediately, since we realize that the public is becoming disillusioned with politics. It thinks that politics are not credible, because it is influenced by interest groups—unions were mentioned—or business.

Another change we should maybe have considered during the examination of this bill on political party financing—and I mentioned this earlier—is the combined influence of interest groups. These days, in our society, it is no longer citizens who dominate. There are even corporations, understandably, that have formed big groups, like all of the chambers of commerce and so on. It is all of these interest groups that constantly influence members to vote one way or another.

This is something that has developed in our democracy over the last 30 years and we have seen it happen. Every citizen with a cause to defend can, if they want, create a lobby group. The more powerful that group is, the greater that person's chances of being heard by governments. Unfortunately, under current legislation, such as the Canada Elections Act and the political party financing legislation, we have also allowed these interest groups to contribute to political parties. That has given them additional influence.

I think this should be prohibited. I think that only citizens should have the right to contribute to political parties, to invest in their democracy and, in this way, ensure its health, on the condition that, as others have mentioned, there be annual reporting and that we know who contributed to the funding of each political party, based on the allowable limit.

In Quebec, if my memory serves well—I would have to check—I think that any contributions over $100 must be declared. There must be a list of people who have contributed to a party. I think the same is true federally, and this is a good idea.

Earlier, there was talk of increasing the burden on taxpayers. I would like to come back to this idea. In fact, I think that it is up to each and every individual to fund political parties, but it is also up to the government to make efforts so that political parties can be viable and, from an economic standpoint, continue to grow and prosper so as to develop our democracy and allow people to participate in it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Party Financing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada Elections Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member will have three minutes remaining in his intervention when we get back to Bill C-24 at report stage.

We will now proceed to statements by members.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-24. This is the second time I have spoken to the bill and it is because of my great concern about it.

I was quite surprised to hear the previous speaker from the government side say that there was wide support for Bill C-24. I have not received a single phone call in my riding of Calgary East in favour of the bill. I have received numerous phone calls opposed to it.

My constituents want to know why taxpayers should finance political parties, a simple question. Hard earned taxpayer dollars will be used to finance political parties. Taxpayers work hard for their money. The government is supposed to tax them for services that improve their quality of life, not send it down. The government is not supposed to play politics with their lives. As I said already, taxpayers cannot understand why they should have to pay for political parties. I cannot answer them.

This government calls itself the natural governing party of Canada. Those Liberal are the ones who have benefited the most out of this whole political financial system. They are the ones who have created it over the years. There are some flaws and there does need to be improvements, but why transfer this burden to taxpayers?

A phenomenon is occurring quite often these days. Somebody needs more money so the government transfers it to them, and this is called user fees. Canadians will tell us that user fees have taken off and there is no accountability. Any organization can charge a user fee and there is no stopping that. My colleague on the other side has a bill before the House, which I am supporting. It tries to bring some accountability to user fees. Bill C-24 is like a user fee.

What is stopping the government from raising the bar and having taxpayers paying money to political parties? There was a revolt in the Liberal Party, and what did the Prime Minister do to pacify those members? He raised the limit. Where does it stop? It will just keep going on and on. It is like giving a blank cheque to the government. With the government's record and when it suits it politically, it will do anything to keep an interest in that file. To Hell with ethics an to Hell with political acumen.This has been the government's record.

Does the government talk about patronage? With regard to Elections Canada, has the government brought in any reform in reference to returning officers? No, it has not. I bet most Canadians do not know that returning officers can only be appointed by the ruling party and nobody else. The government does not want to clean that up.

The government does not want to remove the 50 candidate rule because it benefits the most and it does not want any competition. It does not want to talk about secret trust funds. It also does not want to talk about third party responsibility. If Canadians came to know about that, they would demand change and more accountability. Who does it benefit? It benefits that government over there.

I was amazed to hear the last speaker say that we on this side of the House were attacking the government and that we were being partisan. We are being partisan? Look at the bill and the essence and the intent of it. What does the Prime Minister say about this bill? That it will be influenced by corporations and trade unions.

What does the bill do? There will be a $5,000 limit for individuals and a $1,000 limit for corporations. I am an elected member of Parliament. I go out and solicit campaign funds. Generally Canadians will give $20, $25, $100 or $150. The average Canadian does not give $5,000 to political parties. Only rich Canadians and corporations can afford to give $5,000. Because they give $5,000, why would they not have undue influence? The Prime Minister says that he wants to eliminate that by this bill? It is the same thing. They have just twisted it around so their rich buddies can give them $5,000. It has not changed, it will just be taken away from the corporations.

The essence of not having an influence on this is a counterproductive argument. That is why Canadians ask this simple question. Why should they pay? Why should taxpayers pay for political parties?

This bill also would create an expensive bureaucracy, as my colleague from Surrey just said. Riding associations will require a tremendous amount of reporting to fulfill their bureaucratic requirements. We will be creating a huge bureaucracy with huge reporting requirements.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to the bill that is before the House, Bill C-24.

I should say that it does not surprise me, the route that the government is taking on this.

I sit on the public accounts committee and, as members are aware, the Auditor General of Canada, an independent person who reports directly to the House of Commons as opposed to the government, has pointed out some of the travesties that have occurred in government sponsorship programs.

It is constantly being publicized and brought to the public's attention the accountability of how the government has these kinds of offhand situations where companies are directly benefiting from the fact that they donate to the Liberal Party of Canada, or it might even be in the reverse, where people donate to the Liberal Party of Canada and then they benefit, as a company, from government contracts.

The one thing that has made it possible, not only for the Auditor General but for those of us in opposition whose job it is to hold the government to account, has been the ability to connect, through access to information or just the public accounts, those who get government contracts with those who donate to various political parties, namely, the governing party. We have, through that process, been able to make those connections.

Now, as I understand it, with the new legislation the government is trying to give Canadians the impression that all of that questionable behaviour will cease and desist, and that because of the taxpayer funding parties and elections, this kind of thing will not happen.

A person would have to be awfully naive to think that will be the end result. All that will happen is that rather than a corporation, which might receive a government contract, being upfront with its donation, perhaps 10 individuals of that corporation will be donating the money which would be equal or more than what that corporation might have donated in the first place, but the connections will be much harder to put together.

I think it will just create more confusion in trying to make those connections, therefore giving the governing party an opportunity to not be quite so accountable and upfront with who is getting what contracts and who is donating to the Liberal Party of Canada, or it might be some other party at the time.

I think it is also unfair to establish the public subsidization of political parties based on past performance. It was not that many years ago that I was a recipient of a feeling of the people of Canada that they were tired of the government of the day and wanted to replace it.

If this bill had been in place, it would not recognize that turn of support of the Canadian people. Where a party would have had substantial contributions from the public purse, it came to this House with only two people. Somehow there is a disconnect.

I would suggest that the legislation is very dangerous to democracy in Canada because it would fund the party that has perhaps given poor government by the people of Canada when they do not support that party, and that is unfair. It is undemocratic rather than being unfair for a government to insist that taxpayers have to fund political parties that they do not support.

Political parties should be funded by the people who support them, by the people who want to see them elected and elected in enough numbers to replace the government of the day or, simply put, it is the democratic principle of individuals to support the party that represents their viewpoints.

I do not think all taxpayers want to be supporting parties that they do not like, do not believe in and do not believe in what they stand for, and keep them in power, if that be the case. When we look at the number of dollars that the bill would give to political parties, it is astounding.

I think taxpayers are already concerned with the fact that if individuals who run an election receive more than 15% of the votes they will get back half the money they spent. The legislation says that individuals who get 10% of the popular vote would get back half the money they spent.

If taxpayers really stopped to think about it I think they would be horrified to know to what extent they will be funding this electoral process. I am not saying that there should not be a connect between the voter and the process, but I think that should be the decision by the person who is voting and paying the bill, as to how much connected they want to be to the process.

The two things with which I have real difficulty are that it will be less transparent, I believe, and that it will take away the democratic right of voters to support the party of their choice.

In looking at the fine print I am also very concerned with the reporting mechanisms for smaller amounts of money. I do not how other people operate but my constituency organization has all volunteers. They are good people who give of their time to their country in the way they have chosen to by helping the electoral process, but they are not CGAs. They are not people who can go through an accounting process that, quite frankly, is done at election time, and rightly so, but I cannot see where it will be of benefit to Elections Canada to have all this paperwork flowing in. It will not be to the benefit of the constituency organizations that will have to put out money to hire accountants and auditors to audit the books for, at some times, minimal amounts of money.

When large sums of money are raised it is generally at election time which is when the reporting mechanisms have to be very stringent. I am not saying that there should not be any reporting mechanisms but the way it is outlined in the book it will be almost impossible for smaller volunteer organizations like our constituency associations to meet the requirements. I think it is an inappropriate way of handling this.

The other area that causes me great concern is the way the bill does not even deal with one of the greatest concerns that the Chief Electoral Officer has, and that is the patronage postings of returning officers. The comments from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada is that he would not take our Canadian system and push it in third world countries where they are trying to establish democratic election processes. It is a sad state of affairs when he cannot even use our process as an example of how he would do things. The biggest concern he has is with this business of the Prime Minister of Canada appointing returning officers.

When are we going to have a truly neutral election process? As long as the Prime Minister is in a position of picking and choosing political hacks who support his policy and his party's position, how will we ever get neutral people running elections?

It goes further than the returning officers. It goes down into the people who they pick. There is no way, in a democracy like Canada, that our election process should be tainted by patronage appointments. It is a sad day when the major overhaul of our elections act does not remedy that failure.

As I said, when the Chief Electoral Officer promotes democratic elections around the world to developing and emerging democracies but cannot use our own example, something is wrong with that. The bill fails to address some of those very serious issues.

I will end by saying that I had great hopes that this would have allowed more transparent election spending or contributions but it does not. I had hoped that it would have made the process more democratic but it does not. The bill has failed to address some of the serious concerns that taxpayers, voters, Canadians have with our electoral process.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-24.

I listened carefully to the government House leader when he introduced the debate that is now underway. He congratulated members for introducing amendments that would improve the bill and basically urged that we get through report stage reading in a great big hurry so we can go to third reading with haste and get this bill over and done with.

I have to say, “Not quite so fast, Mr. Government House Leader”. It seems to me we have a situation here where a bill that is overwhelmingly supported by Canadians in terms of its stated purpose is failing spectacularly to live up to what that stated purpose is supposed to be. Let me make it very clear that the New Democratic Party from the outset has endorsed the stated intent of the bill, which is to remove big money from undue influence in the political process, to level the playing field as it relates to the financial base of political parties and specifically to rule out the contribution of political party funds and election contributions from corporations and unions. So far so good: It is a principle that I think is endorsed overwhelmingly by Canadians.

The problem I have as a member who supports that principle, one with which my party is struggling, is the shortfall we now see in what the government clearly has decided is the final version of the bill that it wishes to rush through and implement as the law of the land.

Let me use a couple of examples, one referring to a situation in Nova Scotia that perhaps best illustrates the problem we have with some very uneven treatment in this bill as it relates to contributions from corporations versus contributions from unions. My colleague, the member from Saskatoon, who spoke earlier, already has expressed concern about this. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre also has expressed concerns about this. Let me just for the record say that it is surely a contradiction of the fundamental principle that this bill, which the government wishes to pass in this form, reflecting the amendments from government members, is saying absolutely no to contributions from any trade unions of any kind while it basically leaves the door very open to corporations' contributions to election financing.

That is just a statement of fact. That is not a point of argument or a point of disagreement. The reality is that what has been provided in this bill is that corporations are free, admittedly, to donate less money than they did in the past. The reality is that the Liberal Party in particular has been bankrolled overwhelmingly by corporate donations, so I will acknowledge that the restrictions placed on corporate donations mean that the Liberal Party is scrambling to figure out how to make up the shortfall from that massive source of corporate funding of their election campaigns and their political party in the past.

But by what possible principle of even-handedness does the government feel that disallowing contributions, for example, from trade union locals, while it gives completely open door treatment to business franchises, is the way to go? By what possible logic or principle of fairness has the government made the decision that this is the way to go?

Let me give an example. I know this was referred to briefly by my colleague who spoke before me. We have in this country today 1,201,383 incorporated businesses. We also have in this country today 886 trade unions. I do not want to suggest that every single incorporated business in the country is going to give to one political party or to one particular political party, but based on the legislation before us, we have the potential for 1,201,383 businesses to donate $1,000 each to candidates in every riding across this country. We have no such openness even to the far fewer numbers of trade union locals in the country. We have 16,601 trade union locals in the country. In fact, that is a ratio of 1,355 to 1 as between business and trade union locals, yet we have in this legislation a total disallowance of any trade union locals from making modest contributions to election candidates.

It makes no sense, not if the stated purpose was in fact the intention of this legislation. It simply falls short of the stated purpose, which is to level the playing field and to remove big corporate and big trade union money from election campaigns. Even in the way in which it has been described, there is a severe distortion. There is a deception in creating the impression that money from trade union donors comes anywhere close to matching the massive bankrolling of the Liberal Party in particular.

This is all a matter of public record. This is not a matter of conjecture. Those facts and figures are known, because the New Democratic Party in the early 1970s as a condition of maintaining a minority Liberal government demanded the full disclosure of sources and amounts of political party contributions. The facts are a matter of public record.

But what we have here is a situation, for example, where every single GM dealership, and I am not picking on GM but simply picking out one car dealership in the country, in fact can donate $1,000 to the campaign of the political candidate of its choice. However, no local representing auto workers anywhere in the country, no matter how many thousands of auto workers there are, is permitted to donate $1,000 out of its own auto workers' pockets and paycheques and deposit it through a check-off system which they sign on to. Where is the even-handedness in that? Where is the level playing field? We have made it clear that we are opposed both to union and to corporate funds, but what we are absolutely not in favour of is that kind of discriminatory treatment, that kind of contradictory situation.

The second concern, which I will have an opportunity to speak about at a later date, is really the complete farce of allowing for trust funds that are already in existence, with who knows how many dollars from what sources, to continue to bankroll political party campaigns.

Let me say in closing, because I know my time is up, that I come from Nova Scotia and millions and millions of dollars were obtained by the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia and deposited in trust funds through extortion, through influence peddling and through bribery, of which Liberal Party officials were convicted in the courts. In fact, there were cases of imprisonment related to that. To this day, the Liberal Party bankrolls its campaigns with those illegal trust funds. The legislation has been permitting it.

We now have a situation where we have no idea what is in those trust funds because there is no requirement to disclose the sources of those trust funds. They will be permitted to continue to finance political party campaigns where they are in existence.

One has to say, at the very least, that the bill falls far short of fairness, of any reasonable level of the playing field and of any full disclosure of the sources and amounts of political party contributions, which surely are three major characteristics that one would look for in the bill before being able to wholeheartedly support it.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate on Bill C-24, the new fundraising bill for political expenses that will again be incurred by the taxpayers of the country. We seem to see a common thread here.

The concern from the Canadian Alliance standpoint is that this again misses the target. We see a lot of different bills come to this place that, politically, look like they would be a good thing but when we skin that animal out we realize that it does not go anywhere near what needs to be done.

We have seen a huge problem here. The Prime Minister himself was quoted in the Toronto Star . He said there is a perception that money can unduly influence the political process. He said in the House earlier that there is a perception that corporate and union contributions buy influence.

It is not the donation to a political party that in and of itself is the problem. The problem is when we see things like the sponsorship fiasco that rocked the government a year ago or when donations follow a political package to a friend of someone.

The bill in no way addresses the types of political patronage and the abuse of power by mostly frontbench cabinet members. They have the discretionary funding. We have also seen the Prime Minister being a good little MP and making phone calls to folks who are outside of Treasury Board rules and guidelines. We saw the public works minister and one after another as they fell by the wayside rocked by these scandals. We saw the government struggle to come up with more rules. What is the good of having all these extra rules if nobody follows the darn things anyway? We keep rewriting the rule book, but everybody throws it aside and does their own thing.

Again, we see that in Bill C-24. The relevance of this does not remove the underlying problem of kickbacks, handouts, and donations to the Liberal Party. It is almost proceeds of crime. I am sure that if the RCMP were to dig to the bottom of all of this it would find out the percentage that was required back. It is almost a tithing system the way this was done. Money went to certain parties to perform jobs that were questionable, whether they needed to be done or were done, and then the money was back in Liberal coffers. It is a terrible way to run a government, but that is what is done.

The bill in no way addresses the patronage and kickback problems or even these huge trust funds that certain MPs have developed over the years. It does not address any of those types of situations.

There has been a myriad of articles written on this and I know we stand alone as a political party in saying this is not the right thing to do. We have the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport over there yammering away, but he does not understand what is happening outside the Ottawa bubble. We give these guys a bigger job, a car and driver, and they forget what their folks at home are saying. They will pay the price in the next election. We saw it in the byelection just a short time ago.

Professor Ken Carty is Canada's leading academic analyst to party leadership and electoral process. He said:

Freeing parties from the resources of their members and their supporters will leave them as instruments for professional politicians to mobilize and control voters rather than tools for citizens to direct their public life.

He has some major concerns and I think he hits it right on the head with that statement. This is all about long term political control. These fellows are very good at that as has been demonstrated in the years that they have controlled the country. They have waited for the long term spin to be to their benefit. They are more than happy to take a little short term pain in order to gain some long term control. We have seen that time and time again.

There are a lot of special interest groups out there and a lot of them put pressure on MPs, but mostly cabinet ministers, because they have the resources to change any sort of legislation that comes down here. As backbenchers or opposition members, we do not have a lot of influence in what a final bill will look like. We see that time and again. Members from all sides of the House do great work in committees, and when a report finally gets here, where does it go? It goes into a dustbin. It is gone. Nobody ever picks up some of the amendments and they are good amendments. Some come from this side and some actually come from Liberal backbenchers. These are good, solid, and sound amendments that would make legislation better. However, we see them tossed aside because cabinet ministers have a certain idea where they want to go and they will not deviate from that. They will not rewrite a clause or change a thing in those bills. That is a real frustration.

We have other folks like Errol Mendes, who is a law professor at the University of Ottawa. He is an expert in ethics and human rights. He is troubled by the bill and he is speaking out too.

Professor Mendes has a lot of education along these lines and has sound logic and good thinking. He is saying that there are violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms right here in this piece of legislation. We had the House leader rise and say he does not believe any of that, that it is all hooey and it will end up in the courts and the lawyers will sort it out. There we go again: a piece of legislation that will make a lot of work for lawyers and the courts, and we are already overburdened with courts.

Professor Mendes is the editor-in-chief of Canada's leading constitutional law journal, the National Journal of Constitutional Law . He has written numerous articles about this and has some major concerns, none of which are even close to being addressed by a couple of the amendments that have squeaked through. The problem with those amendments is it makes this package richer, not more accountable. He is saying that this is being ratcheted up.

As a constitutional lawyer, Professor Mendes has some grave concerns. He said that this “subsidy scheme” violates the charter. That is what he calls it, a subsidy scheme, and that is more or less what it is. It is taxpayers' money being subsidized back into political parties which they may or may not support.

Professor Mendes says that under section 15 of the charter, which is designed to protect minorities who have traditionally been blocked out of the system, this goes even further and blocks them some more. The bill does not address the 50 seat rule that we have and so on. Anyone trying to start a political party or maintain a smaller political party will have a terrible time under this bill. Again this is part of the long term benefits the Liberals are looking for. The government House leader writes it all away. Part of his quote was that it may keep a lawyer busy, but it is not going to convince him that it is not good. That is a sad situation and a sad commentary from the House leader, who is more intent on ramming the legislation through as part of the existing Prime Minister's legacy than anything that deals with common sense.

There are a lot of other things that come up in our day to day work here and one I have always questioned is these trade missions, team Canada, led by our all star Prime Minister. In fact, I saw a newspaper headline a while ago, a dated issue that showed the leaders of China and Britain at the time, Bill Clinton from the United States and our illustrious Prime Minister. They are all standing in a row in China. The newspaper article identified the first three, but said when it came to our Prime Minister “man at right unidentified”. That was our Prime Minister, who has been a great friend of China and supports that country every way he can. The paper did not even know who he was and he was there on a trade mission.

There are a lot of questions about that. In fact, when we study it, with the exception of China, for every other country to which we have had a team Canada trade mission, our trade has gone down, not up. And for the one country that we do the majority of our trade with, we did not send trade delegations there and our trade went up. So we have to question the validity of some of these trade delegations.

In the study that was done, the findings were that one-third of the businesses on trade missions donated to the Liberals. The author raises his eyebrows and says it was either a hand picked delegation or they were converted on the road to Damascus and started to make donations to the Liberal Party after they were included in one of these trade delegations. There is some huge lobbying that can go on there and there can be contributions back to a governing party outside of anything this law covers. There are grants and contributions and all sorts of good things that go on. It is a huge double standard.

Another thing that speaks to this is that the government now will review the freebie ticket policy. We had the Ottawa Senators go another step up toward their goal of the Stanley Cup this year. Unfortunately the team did not make it, but they did play well, and lot of folks from this House got free tickets. That does not show up on anyone's list because it is under a certain value and so on, but that is preferential treatment. The Prime Minister can even golf with Tiger Woods and that is supposedly worth $50,000. The Prime Minister's lapdog, the ethics counsellor, said it was just a great thing that the Prime Minister was able to talk to Tiger about American and Canadian relations, but the Prime Minister will not even talk to the president, so I do not think he will get very far through the back door with a golfer like Tiger Woods. In fact, Tiger Woods' comment was that the Prime Minister does some creative accounting when he is keeping his own score.

There are these tickets that slip under the wire and there are these trade missions that slip under the wire, and the Bill C-24 legislation is a terrible way to try to slam the door on this. It does not address the fundamental problem. It is the back door deals we have a concern with, not this.

There is talk from the other side that we on this side will take the money and be hypocrites, but this is called the law of the land. We have no choice once it is in legislation like this, and as much as we detest it we are going to have to live with it. All the extra bookkeeping that is going to be required for our constituency associations and all of that is going to be a terrible workload. A lot of people will throw up their hands. There will less people voting in the next election because they are just walking away from this type of legislation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the report stage motions in Group No. 1 on Bill C-24, a bill which has garnered an awful lot of attention, particularly because as a totality, it brings forward to the House the principle that there is a public perception that the business community has an undue influence on those in political life. I believe all members would agree with that sentiment.

To change the rules regarding donations, a number of questions have been raised. I am going to do what I can to explain some of the changes that have been made and are proposed in the bill. In Group No. 1, Motion No. 4 introduces an inflation factor regarding the amounts payable to political parties based on the number of votes that they get.

The inflation factor is understandable, however I must find out whether the last election is reflective of the participation of each of those parties in terms of corporate and union donations. It may be an aberration. I do not know whether or not there has been enough study done to ensure that the last election is within the range of a reasonable breakdown of the corporate and union support.

Motion No. 8 deals with the amount to be subsidized for a candidate's election expenses. It would increase from 50% to 60% as an adjustment to assist candidates in an election. Individual candidates in a riding would not be able to rely on corporate donations other than the limit allowed which, in a large number of cases, would be a substantial reduction in their ability to raise funds. It is certainly going to shift the onus to a greater participation by individuals. I am not sure whether there is more to the 50% to 60% as a transitional provision. It would appear that it is not a transitional provision, but, in fact, a permanent provision and I am not sure whether that was the intent of the original proposal when the bill was first brought to this place.

The last item deals with advancing a full year amount in the first year and has to do with cash flow issues. I think I can understand that and would be supportive with an implementation date of January 1, 2004. Having said that, the fundamental issue goes right back to the principle which is being presented and strongly recommended to the House by the Prime Minister.

We must address the issue concerning the integrity of people in public life. There should be no allusion that a simple change in fundraising issues could deal effectively with the full scope of the problem. It has taken a long time for people in public life to get this reputation. It is going to take a long time before the public at large feels more comfortable vis-à-vis the people or organizations who influence Parliament.

Having said that, I would question the principle that corporate donations should be restricted to $1,000 across the country. That $1,000 actually gives the corporate donor or a union the full maximum tax credit allowed under the Income Tax Act, namely $500 of benefit. It peaks out below $1,000 so that the direct cost to the taxpayer in terms of the tax expenditure or the reduction of taxes otherwise payable is unchanged by the bill.

The fact that we continue to have corporate donations to a certain extent means that the administrative and mechanics of the system of donations for political purposes continues to be fully in place. Although there is a cap now, there will probably be even more work to determine whether or not compliance with the act has been met by companies. I can see a tremendous amount of cost.

I would argue that the total elimination of all corporate and union donations would be a savings to taxpayers because we would not have the administrative costs. It would be a more streamlined process. Having run in four federal elections, I know how complex the returns are for members when they have to audit their election expenses as well as others who administer fundraising activities in off-election years.

I raise these in good faith because I fundamentally believe in the principle underlying the bill. By addressing this issue the integrity of parliamentarians, of people in public office, will be improved in terms of public perception. I will support the bill on that basis. We are now at a point where members are discussing certain changes. I hope, as a consequence of considering some of the mechanics,--and I can only believe that the committee has touched on some of the points that I raised--that I will be satisfied that these changes being proposed in Group No. 1 would improve the bill and enhance the public perception of the credibility of the bill and its intent.

In conclusion, I support the bill at this point on the main principle. I look forward to following the debate and to participate further with other groups to ensure that when we finish, and have our votes, that we have the best bill possible. Should there be other items that could be dealt with, I trust that all those who have that opportunity to further improve the bill will in fact take that opportunity.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the subamendment to Bill C-24 moved by my colleague, not only because I seconded it but because it is a very good idea. That subamendment would reduce the amount of money payable from the taxpayer, via the government, to political parties to a fraction of what has been proposed in Bill C-24. If I had my way, I would have amended the amount to zero and save all the bookkeeping.

Bill C-24 is an amazingly stupid bill, and I mean that in the best sense of a description in the English language. The bill makes as much sense as the bag of hammers mentioned by the president of the Liberal Party. It really is nonsensical in that it does not make sense. It is detrimental to the democratic process. It basically entrenches the financing ability of parties in the House to the exclusion of any other party.

Back in 1988, the Reform Party would have found it extremely difficult to have come into being under the rules of this legislation. Perhaps this is the motivation of the Liberal government. Maybe it thought of the guys who came here first as reformers and who tried to get together with like-minded, Conservative-minded people in the country with the formation of the united alternative leading to the Canadian Alliance. Unfortunately our dance partner did not come. We have had amazing input to the process.

Members may remember that before we came here, it was politically incorrect to talk about balancing the budget. The government spent to its heart content and did not worry about whether there was enough money. The Liberals did not want to tax people to death because they would rebel, but they did tax them to the max, just short of that line, and spent the money as a government. Probably our primary message when we came to this place was that it was not right to future generations to put the country into such debt that it would probably face bankruptcy.

The party I have been with for almost 10 years has provided a very important function in this place. Under Bill C-24, the Canadian Alliance probably would not have made it here. This is just another huge hurdle to cross before we can criticize the government.

Centuries ago a law was passed granting freedom of speech to all individuals. The reason for it was to permit citizens to criticize their government without fear of losing their heads. Nowadays that is considered a good move. Democracies flourish when governments are held to account. Democracies flourish when individuals, parties, groups, including lobby groups and associations can mount an objection to something the government does. This government wants to free wheel it and does not want anybody to ever say anything against it. The government knows it cannot put people in jail so it sets up a rule preventing certain parties from getting any money and thereby they cannot exist.

Under Bill C-24, the amount of money a party would get would be based on how many votes it received in the previous election. A new party could receive very few votes. Therefore, not being able to raise money directly and not having access to public funds is not an improvement of democracy but rather a detriment to democracy. It means a new party will not likely ever again come on to the Canadian scene. The Liberals should be ashamed of their name because Liberal is supposed to mean freedom to liberate. It is a Latin word, libere , meaning freedom, to free. What they are doing is saying, “No. Unless we are in control here, it can't be”. What they are doing is controlling, even now with the criticism of their party.

I would like to go another step.There is something in a democracy that is fundamentally offensive when it says that I have to part with some of my money through the avenue of coercive taxation when that money is used for purposes with which I disagree. This bill does exactly that.

I know the people over on the other side and the minister of state particularly, love to get up and say that this is totally democratic, that it is based on the number of votes a party gets, therefore when our tax money goes to fund these political parties to think of it as our money going to our party because it is in proportion to the votes the party got.

I just reference back again. If I am working for a party that is just starting up, will I now be exempt from taxation to that degree? No, I am not. I will still have to pay whether I am supporting a brand new party. For those individuals, it is very offensive.

It just happens right now it is not personally offensive in the sense that we had enough votes last time, so this really is not a bad deal financially for us. However we cannot argue a principle based on whether it feels good for us at the present time. That is a very weak argument.

I remember when I was an instructor at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology many years ago. We were forced members of AUPE, and I used that word forced. It was a condition of employment that we belonged to the union. Later on, when we had an opportunity to break out of that union and to form our own professional association, we did it. As I have told members before, my colleagues honoured me by asking me to be the first president of that association. We did very well as an individual association in comparison to how we did under the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees. I am not, by this, saying there is no room for unions. There is indeed. However this union was very coercive in its nature, and I found it very offensive. That is one reason why we broke away from it.

One thing it did was make a huge donation every year to the NDPs, both federally and provincially, and I objected. I wrote a letter to say that I objected to my dues money, which was substantial, being taken to support a political party with which I disagreed. The union said that the decision was taken democratically. It had a convention and somebody put forward a motion that the union support the NDP and it passed democratically. Therefore my money, even though I did not agree with it personally, went to party.

Unions are wrong when they do this. They should poll their members, see what proportion each of them are and then give the money to each party in that proportion. They did not do that and I was offended by it.

By the same token now, each of us will be required to fund political parties and political activities with which we disagree, and that is true for every citizen in the country. Not one of us says that this year we will donate $100 to political parties and therefore we will give $50 to the Liberals, $30 to the Canadian Alliance, $20 to the other parties, and our money is gone. I will not do that. I choose which party best represents my idea of what this country should be, and then all my money goes to that party.

We are wrong when we coerce Canadian taxpayers from coast to coast to support a party other than the one they really do support. That is a wrong assumption, and I would strongly urge members of the House, now that the opportunity will be before us, to reject totally the bill when it comes to final vote.

The amendments that are being put forward are meant to improve the bill in the short term. We cannot improve in the short term that which is wrong fundamentally for the long term. We must be against this legislation on principle, not because it is politically expedient at the present time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on debate in report stage of Bill C-24 to discuss the amendments in Group No. 1.

I want to deal with some of the amendments themselves. For instance, Motion No. 4 amends paragraph 435.1(2) to, first, increase the bases for the allowance from $1.50 to $1.75 and second, to allow for the indexation of the allocation.

The idea of this is the amendments would ultimately ensure that the changes to the political financing rules brought by Bill C-24 would not result in revenue losses for any of the parties. It was discovered, during the committee stage discussion, that the intention of the government was the bill be revenue neutral. It became clear that it was not quite revenue neutral, so this change was made to ensure it was. Also having indexation will ensure that it remains so for the future.

These proposed adjustments result from revisions made to the estimate of losses to parties that would result from the new restrictions of contributions by individuals, corporations and unions. That is the idea behind those amounts.

Regarding Motions Nos. 8 and 9, they amend subsections 464(3) and 465(3) of the Canada Elections Act to increase from 50% to 60% the percentage of election expenses for candidates that will be reimbursed.

The reason is that this premature change to reduce the financial impact felt by candidates would result in new restrictions on contributions by individuals, corporations and unions.

Concerning Motion No. 13, which deals with the early payment of quarterly allowances for 2004, the motion would add a transitory provision to provide that the quarterly allowance to parties for 2004 would exceptionally be paid in a single instalment at the beginning of the year when the act came into force.

The idea here is there is a need for transition because we have a new bill and a new procedure coming in. It was felt this would help with that transition for the political parties. It would also provide the possibility of subsequent adjustments to the allowance during that year, if there were to be an election in 2004, resulting in a change to the amount that a party is normally entitled to receive.

For example, in the case of an increased allowance following an election in 2004, additional instalments to the party would be made on a quarterly basis. On the other hand of course, in the case of where a party received an amount at the beginning of the year that was greater than that to which it would be entitled based upon the results of the votes from that election, let us say it was next year, any amount paid in excess of what it would be entitled to would have to be paid back to the coffers of the government.

For 2005 and subsequent years, the allowance would be paid on a quarterly basis, as provided for in the bill originally. Again, this is a transition measure to help the parties adjust to the new procedure.

Motion No. 14 would allow for reimbursements for election expenses for parties incurred in the first general election following the coming into force of the act to be set at 60% instead of 50%, as a one-time exception.

Subsequently, parties would receive a 50% reimbursement for election expenses, as set out in the bill. Once again, this is a transitional measure to help parties adjust to the new system.

Those are the positions of the government on the various motions, and I look forward to hearing the views of other members of the House.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I assume we are speaking technically against the amendment introduced by the member from the Alliance, that the amount be reduced to $0.01 from $0.4375. I certainly am speaking against that amendment, but I am also speaking against the increase from $0.375 that was originally proposed by the government House leader when he introduced this legislation.

The price of democracy has risen over the course of the weekend. What was to be $1.50 per vote per year to each of the political parties has now, according to the amendments that are in front of us in Group No.1 of this section, risen to $1.75.

I recall well the government House leader, when he was before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and when he introduced this bill, saying that the government officials had looked very closely at the returns over the past several years of all the political parties as to the total global amounts of money they received from trade unions, corporations and other associations by way of donations and that he was quite confident in what he reported to the committee on that occasion, that at $1.50 per vote per year, no political party would suffer financial injury as a result of that.

What has transpired in the last three months that now we come back at report stage and the $1.50 has climbed 25¢ to $1.75?

I have only been around here for six years. I do not recall one occasion when an organization or a request for money has come to the government that the government actually has turned around and given more than was ever requested. I find it passing strange that on this occasion the $1.50 becomes $1.75. I can only assume, as we have heard throughout this, that there has been a lot of in-fighting in the Liberal Party. The president of the party, Mr. LeDrew, has said that this whole idea was as dumb as a bag of hammers. We know, as has been alluded to by other speakers ahead of me today, that the Liberal Party has a significant debt, and so to extract another 25¢ from the taxpayer is no big deal, except that the members opposite ought to be hanging their heads in shame.

The other part of this, which I do not think anyone has touched upon so far, is that of course this money will all be, what they call in labour management negotiations, front-end loaded for the first go around. In other words, when the $1.75, on which we will be voting at some point, comes into effect for the purpose of the first go around on the legislation, when the bill comes into effect on January 1, 2004, all the political parties will receive $1.75 in a lump sum payment, as opposed to quarterly payments of 43¢ which would represent $1.75 in four annual instalments. Each of the political parties will receive their full allotment based upon how well, or less well, they performed in the 2000 election campaign. The Liberals already would have received over $8 million, and at $1.50, we can do the math and figure out what that will mean for them. It will certainly mean more money and it will be the termination of the Liberal debt as it heads into an election, which we undoubtedly will have within the next 12 months.

Those are real concerns. I want to make it clear that this party supports Bill C-24, the election financing act, in principle. We believe there are many good features in the bill. We think it could be a lot better. It does not need to be test driven to find out where some of the flaws are going to be.

For example, we believe and have said repeatedly that there should be no opportunity for trade union or corporate financing in this legislation. The only group of people who should be able to donate to politics are those who will be or are eligible to vote. We think that is a good principle.

We fought the notion of allowing any donations from trade unions, corporations and associations. We note that the amounts are relatively small, $1,000 per year, and none of that money can go to a political party. It all has to go to a candidate or a riding association from corporations, trade unions and associations.

However a very unlevel playing field has been allowed to occur. We tried to address it with our motions but they were ruled out of order. We tried it at clause by clause. The issue is the definition of how corporations and trade unions are defined.

As I said, our first preference was to eliminate all of that money. However if we are going to have, admittedly, modest amounts of money, then we believe that trade union locals should be able to donate $1,000 per year. They have their own bylaws and elect their own officers. They have money at their disposal and ought to be part of the electoral process, just like a Tim Hortons franchise or a General Motors franchise could and would be allowed to do.

When we look at the facts and figures, there are about 16,600 union locals in Canada, but when we look at the number of incorporated businesses in Canada, there are more than one million of them. As I said, this is a very unlevel playing field. We have tried without success to have the government see this, to have the government even take the general definition of a trade union under the Canada Labour Code. If it applied that definition to this legislation, then the locals would indeed be able to participate in the electoral process, just the same as a doughnut franchise or a DaimlerChrysler dealership.

However the government has taken a very narrow definition where it lumps all the locals together. This to us is very unfortunate and I think it points out a fundamental flaw. As I say, the bill does not need to be test driven to find out where the flaws are. They stick out like a sore thumb.

Another area for which we feel very strongly is the whole area of trust funds. In the course of clause by clause analysis, clause 71 of Bill C-24 was deleted. This, in effect, would have allowed those members of Parliament who have trust funds now, some of which are very sizeable, to simply launder that money into their riding association over the next six months with no questions asked. Therefore, on January 1, 2004, when the legislation takes effect, none of the sources of this money will have to be disclosed. We find that extremely unfortunate. We believe that clause 71 should have remained intact and that those funds, which have been held by perhaps half a dozen or 10 members of Parliament who have trust funds that we are aware of through public knowledge and public information, should have been in the bill and should have had to have been reported prior to January 1, 2004. That will not happen. It is another shortcoming of the bill.

On the positive side, reducing the amount that an individual can contribute from $10,000 to $5,000, is good on balance, although I would concur with my colleague from the Conservatives where we have allowed wealthier candidates to be able to put in $10,000 if they are running for office.

We will be speaking more about these as we get into report stage further, but those are our initial observations.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think the final debate on and analysis of the election financing bill, Bill C-24, will prove to be an interesting one. Certainly I do not think there is a lot of disagreement among the political parties in the House of Commons on the fact that the election financing system needs to be revised and reformed, but I do think there is a lot of disagreement on exactly how that should occur.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris, for all the work he has done on the bill. He, rather than I, has really had carriage of Bill C-24 so really I stand today to speak on behalf of the member for Brandon—Souris.

As we know, Bill C-24 was introduced at the beginning of the year as part of the Prime Minister's eight point action plan on ethics. Supposedly the bill was introduced to help address the lack of trust in which Canadians hold not necessarily only this institution but the political system itself. It was supposed to do something to combat the low voter turnout we are seeing in elections and hopefully improve the fairness and transparency of the electoral system.

The Progressive Conservative Party believes that the bill does not address the issue of low voter turnout and does the opposite of creating fairness and addressing transparency. However, I think there will be further and more in-depth debate on this issue.

Let us look at the whole point of having an election financing bill and the Prime Minister's seeming insistence on ramming it through the House at late sitting in June. I think Canadians need to ask themselves a few questions. The first question would be this one: Why would a government that has been in power for 10 years bring in an election financing bill now? Also, what advantage does it give to the government that it maybe does not give to other political parties?

Having come to the bill only recently and really just having had the opportunity to look at it in depth, the first question I ask is not the question of whether perhaps there is room in the system for public financing of elections, because I think possibly with the right type of system, with the correct system and a proper analysis of the situation as it exists now, we could have public financing of elections and actually do a pretty good job of it.

However, if we really want to do something to react to low voter turnout and if we want the electorate to have faith and trust in the system, then here is what I would suggest to the government. I made the amendment at committee, which was not accepted. I tried to make it again at this reading of the bill and again it was not accepted. Rather than change the system as the Liberals and the majority on committee did, the bill should come into effect on January 1, 2006, not even January 1, 2005. As the bill exists now, it will come into effect on January 1, 2004.

I do not think there is a breathing and thinking Canadian who does not believe that we will have another election after that date, so really what the Liberal government has done here is get rid of its debt, and it has done that by just putting it over onto the backs of the taxpayers. The taxpayers of Canada will collect the tab for the next election. We have a big majority government. If we do it on the results of the last campaign, it only benefits the parties as they are established in the House of Commons now.

The reason I suggested that the bill should come into effect after January 1, 2006 is that we would be guaranteed that it would be after the next election.

I understand the need to base the election financing on some statistics, on some group of numbers. I would say that from my knowledge the committee worked very hard to be as fair as possible. However, by moving the date forward instead of backward, it showed a serious bias toward the establishment, the government and the numbers as they existed in 2000, not as they may exist after another election.

The bill is all about incumbency. It is all about supporting the government that is there now, supporting the parties that have the majority of the numbers. It is not about fairness. There is very little fairness in the bill.

Supposedly, we are taking away the ability of corporations to donate to political parties. However we have not taken away the ability of wealthy individuals to donate to political parties. In particular, and I think even more galling for me, is the fact members of Parliament would be able to donate to their own campaigns to the tune of $5,000 per year. What a slap in the face to ordinary Canadians who do not have that kind of money to put into a political campaign. However what a big assistance to the incumbent, especially the wealthy incumbent who may not have the public support to run an election campaign but who has the personal and private support to finance his or her own election campaign.

I think it is time Canadians took a look at the bill for exactly what it is. Again, it is all about incumbency. It is all about assisting the wealthy who may happen to be in politics already. It is a long way from transparency and fairness. I think the government has it wrong.

If we examine the fairness issue and look at the public funding of parties based on the number of votes received in the previous election, how can this possibly be viewed as fair? The governing party gets to start an election at least five paces ahead of every other party based on the platform it ran on three, four or five years earlier. The public financing does not address the changing views of Canadians during the term of this government or of any other government.

The government needs to look at a method of core funding for political parties and reasonable and equal limits for corporate and individual donations.

There is no balance to the legislation as it exists. The reporting requirements of the legislation should be a burden carried by cabinet, the Prime Minister's Office and members of Parliament. Instead, it is placed on our volunteer organizations that are already stretched to the max. It will discourage rather than encourage participation in the political process.

The government is beginning a process of micromanaging political parties, including the very structure of political parties, and the management of disclosed funds that are transferred within the party structure.

Due to the Prime Minister's supposed legacy agenda, we have had a very short time to examine the bill. It seems that very little thought and substance has gone into the bill. I will say again that I think the committee has tried to do what it could with the bill. A lot of discussions have taken place and a lot of hard work has gone into the bill but it has not been enough.

When there is a Liberal majority on the committee, at the end of the day the Prime Minister gets exactly what he wants. If what he wants is to put this in place now to pay off the $8 million debt of the Liberals, then that is exactly what Canadians will get.

I think there are some real issues with this particular legislation that have not yet been addressed, and certainly the issue of fairness is one of them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the minister only took a couple of minutes. I guess he wants to minimize the exposure to criticism about this bill because it is a huge invasion on the public treasury. He said, also, that he wants to adopt this stage rapidly so we can move on to third reading and get this thing pushed through the House, presumably so he can go home on Friday. However we can just tell by his demeanour that he cannot wait to get his shovel into the public treasury and start loading the cash into the Liberal coffers so the Liberals can pay for their day to day operations.

It is outrageous that the bill is all about paying for the day to day operations of the Liberal Party of Canada, using other people's money. That is what it comes down to. It is so easy to spend other people's money in this place and that is exactly what is happening here. It is a rape and pillage of the public treasury to provide hundreds of millions of dollars a year to political parties that should be raising the money they need from the people they claim to support or to represent. That is what should be happening; not a big shovel into the public treasury to load other people's money into our treasury.

This bill does not even fix the problems it was supposedly produced to address. Even the president of the Liberal Party, Stephen LeDrew, said that this bill would increase cynicism. At committee hearings, when we had witnesses before the committee on the bill, he said that it would increase the cynicism among voters.

The party on this side of the House, the Canadian Alliance, agrees with that interpretation.

My colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley did a survey in her riding and I have a done a casual survey in mine, hers was more formal, asking people what they thought of the idea of taxpayer money being used to subsidize the day to day operations of political parties. The results were 95% to 96% of the people are opposed. They would rather have that $1 or $2, or whatever it is, in their pockets to help support their families and to spend wisely on the economy of the country rather than giving it to the Liberal Party of Canada, the Canadian Alliance, the PCs and the NDP.

My party, the Canadian Alliance, has done a good job of raising the money we need from individual supporters over all the years, and we would have been happy to stay with the status quo.

It is not too late for the government to abandon this exercise of attack on the public treasury. It could abandon it at this point. I certainly hope the Liberals see the light.

Also, I would like to mention that the number of amendments which have come through on the bill illustrate how badly it has been put together. It is full of extremely complicated wording. We found many errors during the committee hearings that the government was constantly introducing technical amendments to fix problems it had discovered. I identified two problems for the minister, not because I supported the intent of the bill but because if there were to be a bill passed in this place, it may as well be correct. They continue to find problems. One of the motions before us for debate, I am not sure if it is in this first group, again is to fix a technical problem.

The government has not done due diligence on this bill. It was rushed into this place because the Prime Minister wanted it, before there had been proper research.

During the weekend, I noticed a CP Newswire item that said the Prime Minister won the dubious honour of being the stupidest person in Canada. Members might ask “What does that have to do with this bill?” I actually disagree with the voters who made that decision during the weekend because I do not think that the Prime Minister is stupid, but I think he is very crafty. I think he introduced this bill to diffuse a big problem that was in this place, and that was the problem that we were finding the huge donations from supporters of the Liberal Party of Canada, and those donors subsequently were rewarded with money from the public treasury in the form of very lucrative contracts.

I know that when my colleagues get up to speak on this bill, some of them will be using examples of those types of huge contracts that were awarded to people who had been generous donors to the Liberal Party. I will give them the chance to do that because I would like to move on to some of the other things that the bill fails to do and fails to do even in this latest batch of motions we are debating right now.

First, Bill C-24 fails to fix the underlying problem of the awarding of government grants, government contracts and loans, most of which end up being forgivable to supporters of the party in power. If anything, Bill C-24 will make it more difficult to uncover such behaviour because now huge corporations, like Bombardier, which have traditionally supported the Liberal Party to get contracts, will not even have to front up with any money. They will still get the contracts, they will still get the favours and we will not have any way of tracking it down unless we go through a very complex reporting procedure investigating whether individuals have used their ability to donate individually to try to influence the government.

Bill C-24 also fails to correct the 50 candidate rule. That 50 candidate rule, which was struck down, was put in place by this government. It required small or emerging parties to run 50 candidates in an election to be recognized as a party and have tax receipt status. We felt it was wrong. We have tried for years to get the government to agree to make it 12 candidates, which is the same as the number required for party recognition in the House. All the small parties out there in the other world agree with 12 being a reasonable number. The courts have struck down 50 as unreasonable. In fact in the court case in Ontario, which struck down the 50 candidate rule, the judge said that two people were a party.

That minister has a history of bringing bills to this place that end up costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in legal fees because of charter challenges. When I get the opportunity to speak at third reading, I will highlight some weaknesses in the bill that will open it to court challenges. However that minister has a history of introducing such bills. It is very problematic.

Here again, we have a problem that the Liberals could have fixed. It is being court challenged. Because of his failure to change the 50 candidate rule to 12, when he had the opportunity while we were amending the Elections Act, I believe the courts will prevail and we will be forced to accept two as the number. It was very foolish of the minister. He should have dealt with it while we were dealing with Bill C-24.

The bill fails to end patronage appointments to positions in Elections Canada. Since I first came here in 1993, and when I joined the Reform Party back in 1988, it has been a policy of this party to try to get the government to allow Elections Canada to select its own returning officers in a non-partisan way based on skill. Instead, the government insists on a system of political patronage appointments to Elections Canada. Returning officers are selected by the Prime Minister, and when they do not do their job, the Chief Elections Officer cannot get rid of them. In fact he mentioned during committee hearings that he presently had 11 returning officers who were not doing their job. He cannot fire them because he has to get the Prime Minister to agree.

The Bloc introduced an amendment in committee which was defeated, so unfortunately, I cannot do it here in the House at this stage. The amendment was to get the government to move to a system of proper appointments of these people, and not being political patronage appointments.

I realize I do not have much time. What I need to do now is express my frustration in a very meaningful manner, by moving an amendment. I move:

That Motion No. 4 be amended by replacing the amount $0.4375 with the amount $0.01.

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

moved:

That Bill C-24, in Clause 40, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 24 on page 41 with the following:

“(2) An allowance fund for a quarter is the product of

(a) $0.4375 multiplied by the number of valid votes cast in the election referred to in subsection (1), and

(b) the inflation adjustment factor determined under subsection 405.1(1) that is in effect for that quarter.”

That Bill C-24, in Clause 48, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 64 the following:

“(3) The portion of subsection 464(3) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(3) An official agent of a candidate shall without delay return to the Receiver General any amount received by him or her under subsection (2) that is more than 60% of the total of”

That Bill C-24, in Clause 49, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 64 the following:

“(2.1) Paragraphs 465(2) (a) and (b) of the Act, as amended by subsections (1) and (2), are replaced by the following:

(a) 60% of the sum of the candidate's paid election expenses and paid personal expenses, less the partial reimbursement made under section 464, and

(b) 60% of the election expenses limit provided for in section 440, less the partial reimbursement made under section 464.”

That Bill C-24, in Clause 72, be amended

(a) by replacing line 43 on page 101 with the following:

“72. (1) For the quarter during which this”

(b) by adding after line 49 on page 101 the following:

“(2) The allowance payable to a registered party under section 435.02 of the Canada Elections Act, as enacted by section 40 of this Act, for the quarter during which this section comes into force and for any remaining quarters of the year during which it comes into force shall be estimated on the basis of the most recent general election preceding the coming into force of this section and paid within 30 days after its coming into force. Subsection 435.02(2) of the Canada Elections Act, as enacted by this Act, applies to that payment with any modifications that may be required.

(3) In the application of sections 435.01 and 435.02 of the Canada Elections Act, as enacted by this Act, any amount paid under subsection (2) in relation to a quarter shall be taken into account. A registered party that received an amount under subsection (2) for a quarter that is in excess of the amount to which it is entitled under those sections for that quarter shall without delay return to the Receiver General the amount of that excess. The Receiver General may reduce any other amount payable to the party by the amount of that excess.”

That Bill C-24 be amended by adding after line 49 on page 101 the following new clause:

“72.1 For the first general election after the coming into force of this section, the reference to “50%” in subsection 435(1) of the Canada Elections Act, as enacted by this Act, shall be read as a reference to “60%”.”

Mr. Speaker, I want to take just two minutes to make a general comment about the first amendment, and, at the same time, thank all the members for their work in committee. I would like to thank, in particular, those members who made recommendations to the government, thereby permitting me to move motions at report stage. I want to thank those members.

Since there are now very few motions at report stage, I am therefore asking all my hon. colleagues in this House to pass them very quickly, so that third reading can take place soon.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Peterborough for doing an excellent job as chair of the standing committee responsible for considering these motions that will be debated shortly.

I also want to thank the committee for having provided me with a draft of the recommendations to be tabled later this afternoon. This draft enabled me, over the past few days, to amend and improve the bill. This institution called the House of Commons of Canada means a great deal to us, as does the process whereby we represent our constituents here.

I will have an opportunity to go into greater detail during third reading. For now, those are all my comments. I ask all my hon. colleagues, given the very small number of amendments at report stage, to pass them very quickly so that we can conclude consideration of this bill, which is truly a step in the right direction, one which the Right Hon. Prime Minister took with his speech of last June, and, of course, which will ensure the best governance of our country.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

There are 15 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-24.

The Chair will not select Motions Nos. 5 to 7 since they require a royal recommendation.

The Chair will not select Motions Nos. 1 to 3, and 15 because they could have been presented in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:

Group No. 1 will include Motions Nos. 4, 8, 9, 13 and 14.

Group No. 2 will include Motion No. 11 only.

Group No. 3 will include Motion No. 12 only.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 4, 8, 9, 13 and 14 in Group No. 1 to the House.

Lobbyists Registration Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-15. I want to thank other members for their contributions to the debate today. I found them helpful and I learned a great deal.

I want to thank my colleague from Churchill for her energetic and enthusiastic intervention. She touched on a great number of concerns that ordinary Canadians have about lobbyists particularly about having undue influence in our Canadian political system. That is the way I could summarize the apprehensions many Canadians feel.

Canadians feel that there could be a trend and a tendency for lobbyists to have such influence in our Canadian political structure so as to undermine democracy. Many people look at the United States in a critical light and recognize that lobbyists play an incredibly important role on Capital Hill. Most Canadians do not have an appetite to see us going in that direction.

In the American political structure with more independent free votes, more effort is made to ensure that congressmen and senators vote in a certain way because they more or less have to earn the votes one by one instead of along party lines. Many people believe Washington is driven by lobbyists and feel they play an incredibly influential role in how it operates. In that country, a lobbyist is the highest on the pecking order in the sphere of political strength. Canadians do not want to see us going down that road, and that is why they welcome a firm and clear regulatory regime within which lobbyists may operate.

We all recognize the fact that lobbyists play a legitimate role in bringing specific issues to the attention of members of Parliament. The only lobbyists I welcome into my office as a rule are those from the non-profit sector. However, lobbyists do come to Parliament Hill with the legitimate purpose of trying to make members of Parliament more aware of issues of their concern. I think of the effective and legitimate annual lobby of firefighters. There is no self-interest involved in that lobby. It is a matter of health and safety issues et cetera. Many non-profit organizations do knock on our doors on a regular basis.

The lobbyists we need to regulate are those representing personal gain, self-interest, profit et cetera. We do not want our decision-makers influenced in an undue way by the overwhelming influence of these people.

I would like to quote from Democracy Watch, an organization that has been very diligent in following these matters. The coordinator of Democracy Watch, Duff Conacher, commented on the recent Senate committee on rules and procedures as it dealt with the Lobbyists Registration Act. He said:

The federal Liberals proposed lobbying law changes are not enough to end secret lobbying or unethical ties between lobbyists and politicians.

Mr. Conacher was speaking for many Canadians when he said that they do not see enough in Bill C-15 to satisfy them that the regulations are tight enough to put an end to the secret lobbying that we know takes place. We are not being inflammatory or saying anything outlandish when we say that we have reason to believe that secret lobbying takes place without being fully reported. We have reason to believe that there has been and may still be unethical ties between lobbyists and politicians, or as was pointed out by the member for Churchill, even more commonality between lobbyists and senior bureaucrats. It is not necessary that they reach the actual cabinet minister.

It is probably very rare that lobbyists gets through all the various shielding that goes on around cabinet ministers and get to the individual cabinet minister, but certainly they get to visit and see senior bureaucrats with no record and no obligation to make public or to make known those meetings that may take place.

We are not satisfied with the current amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act. Speaking on behalf of many Canadians, the amendments are not rigid or stringent enough to safely say that we can put an end to secret lobbying or unethical ties.

Some of the key loopholes in Bill C-15 that still need to be closed and that still exist are loopholes that some commentators have said are big enough to drive a truck through in terms of the opportunities that are there for abuse and misuse. I will not go into specific industries, but people have mentioned some industries that concentrate a great deal on lobbying on the Hill such as the drug industry, the oil industry, et cetera. We believe that there is not full transparency in the activities of the paid lobbyists on behalf of some of those key industries.

A key loophole that still remains in Bill C-15, even after the Senate committee has had a go at it, is the fact that ministers and other senior public officials should be required to disclose, on a searchable Internet site, who is lobbying them and ensure that all lobbying is exposed. That is not automatically available. We should know who is trying to influence what minister or what senior bureaucrat at any given time.

Those of us who have the research capabilities could dig back. After a piece of legislation has been introduced some of us who may be curious to know just what motivated the government to introduce that legislation may do some research, track backwards and find which lobbyists have been aggressively pushing for this, but it is not easy and it is not readily available. It certainly is not readily available on any Internet site, as is being proposed by Democracy Watch, so that ordinary Canadians, anybody who could operate an Internet site better than I, would be able to find out who is lobbying who at any given time.

I think it would be very revealing, looking at major capital expenditures such as military investments, specifically the helicopter deal, to see how much lobbying is going on by the various helicopter manufacturers that are trying to sell products to the Canadian government. It is not readily available and it would be very interesting to most Canadians.

We also believe that Bill C-15 leaves loopholes in that hired lobbyists should also be required to disclose past offices that they may have held, if they were a public servant or a politician at one time, or held any other public office. Corporate and organization lobbyists would be required to do so, but we believe that all other individual lobbyists should be required to disclose fully their past c.v. and their track record. Some are obvious. We have paid lobbyists in Ottawa, on the Hill, who are former members of Parliament. I suppose that is a matter of public record. It is fairly self-evident to anybody who follows these things, but we should know if they were at any time senior public servants who may have had dealings with that industry in their capacity representing the federal government.

If those same individuals are now registered lobbyists, we should know because it is too close a connection, it is too tight, and they may be using privileged information or information that they gleaned while they were in the employ and the trust of the federal government. That information could be advantageous to them in their new capacity as lobbyists. Again, we have the right to know that.

We are also concerned about a very specific point. The exemption of section 3(2) in Bill C-15, which amends section 4(2)(c) of the Lobbyists Registration Act, should be removed from the bill because it would allow lobbyists who are only requesting information to avoid registration.

That surely opens the door for abuse. Some lobbyists will be excluded from the obligation to be registered if they say that they are only lobbying for the purpose of getting information from the government. It is a rare thing that an organization or a private interest would hire someone to go to the government just to obtain information. If a person stated that was the purpose for lobbying on the Hill, that person would go under the radar. No one would have to register at all. Who knows what lobbying really goes on once the door is closed and once there is access to the people involved. We believe that specific point should be addressed.

I know it is the purpose of this debate tonight to deal with the specifics of Bill C-15. Therefore the exemption in subclause 3(2) of Bill C-15, which amends subsection 4(2)(c) of the Lobbyists Registration Act, should be removed from the bill. That is the strong view of the NDP caucus.

Also lobbyists should be required by law to disclose how much they spend on a lobbying campaign. That information again is not readily available. If that information were readily available, I think journalists or any interested party, including ordinary Canadians, may be interested to know. Certainly a red flag should go up if there is a huge amount of money being dedicated to a specific campaign, and that is cause for concern. We should be aware that this private interest is so motivated that it feels compelled to spend $.5 million or $1 million on a lobbying effort. The country should know that.

We would want to question the people who have a serious interest in this issue and ask what the motivation is and the opportunity for gain. Perhaps it warrants more scrutiny by parliamentarians and by the general public. I am surprised that is not law already. I learned a great deal just by reviewing the details surrounding the Lobbyists Registration Act, and I think a lot of Canadians believe this is already the case. In fact I think they would be disappointed to learn that we do not already have these safeguards and measures in place to plug any opportunity where there is room for abuse.

Lobbyists as well should be prohibited by law from working in senior campaign positions for any politician or candidate for public office. That raises an interesting point. What about Earnscliffe? Did Earnscliffe not play an active role just recently in a fairly high profile leadership campaign race? Does it not have paid lobbyists? Is that not what it does on Parliament Hill? That is a graphic illustration of an example that we would want to see disclosed. We are aware of that now anyway, so I suppose that particular example does not pose any problem. However in other examples it is not self-evident, with a less high profile situation perhaps.

We believe lobbyists should be prohibited by law from working in senior campaign positions for any politician or candidate for public office. I think one precludes the other. They cannot have it both ways, I do not believe. We are trying to avoid this kind of incestuous relationship.

Also, lobbyists should be prohibited from working for the government or having business ties to anyone who works for the government, such as if a lobbyist's spouse is working for the government. We know there are examples of that as well. The connection is just simply too close. We would speak strongly for making that change to ensure that lobbyists are prohibited by law from working in senior campaign positions or from working for the government or having business ties to anyone who works for the government, business ties or personal ties I would add.

The prohibition on lobbying the government for ex-ministers and ex-senior public officials should be increased to five years, not the current situation. It is too brief. We believe five years would be long enough to span one term of office, one session of Parliament, possibly even one government. The government may change within a five year period. It is too fresh to simply leave such a senior position, like an ex-minister, an ex-senior public official or a deputy minister, for instance, and then 12 months and one day later become a lobbyist.

This is what we found with Chuck Guité, the deputy minister in the Groupaction scandal. He left his job, a senior position, with all the scandals associated with Groupaction. One year and one day later he was registered as a lobbyist for the public relations firm's associations. I do not have the names. He was working on the Hill 366 days after leaving that senior position in public works where he was the one who awarded those very contracts to those very people he now represents. That is too close. There is too much opportunity and room for abuse. That is a good example of a name that should certainly raise the alarm with anyone.

Another point raised by Mr. Conacher with Democracy Watch, and I would argue on behalf of ordinary Canadians, is that he believes the proposed new ethics commissioner to be created under Bill C-34 should also enforce the lobbyists code of conduct rather than the registrar of lobbyists as proposed in Bill C-34. We believe that would prevent any conflict in ruling. That could be a role. If we had an independent ethics commissioner, or even the ethics commissioner to be created under Bill C-34, that person should enforce the lobbyist code of conduct, instead of the registrar of lobbyists, to put more distance and have more objectivity.

I am pleased that a number of presenters raised this connection. I suppose it is not a coincidence that we are dealing with Bill C-15 and Bill C-34 simultaneously in the same week in the House of Commons. I believe there is a direct connection between the campaign finance bill, the elections financing act, and the Registration of Lobbyists Act. Surely people can see that we want to take big money out of politics.

We do not believe anybody should be able to buy an election in this country. We have seen what happens in the United States where big money, soft money and all the terms they use down there has far too much influence, undermines and even bastardizes democracy in that sense. These two are inexorably linked, because one of the biggest promises a lobbyist can bring to a government to buy influence is the opportunity to make campaign contributions.

I see an opportunity in both of these bills to make Canada more democratic, but I also see shortcomings. Bill C-24 does not go far enough and it still allows far too much business contributions. It strips away trade union contributions but still allows individual franchises of the same company to donate $1,000 each, whereas a national union with 100 locals can only donate $1,000. That is my criticism of Bill C-24.

Just to wrap it up then, I believe there is a direct correlation. Bill C-15 does not go far enough in the ways that I have outlined, the seven different points that I have raised. Bill C-24 does not go far enough in that it treats trade union contributions more strictly than it does business campaign contributions. The connection is lobbyists will no longer be able to say that if one favours their client, their client will likely make a large campaign contribution to one's political party. That is a legitimately a good thing. We believe that only a registered voter should be able to make a political campaign contribution. That is what we have done in the province of Manitoba. There is not even any provincial government money to offset the lack of union and business donations. The rule is clean, pure and simple that only a registered voter can make a political campaign contribution, and that is the way it should be.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very powerful question. Yes, I have checked my agenda as to what work remains to be done. We all know that there is lots of work to do.

That is why, this afternoon, the House will return to its consideration of Bill C-15, the lobbyist legislation, followed by Bill S-13, respecting census records. We will then return to Bill C-17, the public safety bill.

I am sorry that this morning we were unable to complete our consideration of Bill C-7. Tomorrow, we will begin considering the Senate's amendments to Bill C-10B, the cruelty to animals legislation, and Bill C-35, the military judges bill. If we have any time remaining, I still hope we can finish with Bill C-7, of course.

Next week, starting on Monday, the House will consider Bill C-24, the elections finance bill, at the report stage, and any items from this week that have not been completed.

I wish to confirm to the House that Thursday, June 12 shall be an allotted day.

Canada Elections Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aboriginal Affairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rifts have developed. A legacy is at risk. However

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

Meanwhile, Canadian taxpayers are being charged a billion--

Committees of the House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Party Financing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question.

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

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

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

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

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

Justice

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

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

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

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

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

Political Party Financing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's interest in this topic is an example to us all.

The committee has been considering Bill C-24 for three or four weeks. This evening at 5:30 in room 253-D there is a round table meeting of the committee which is open to all members. We hope that all members will respond to that opportunity.

Later this week we will have further witnesses from provinces which have experience with similar legislation, and some time after the break we will be consider clause by clause and amendments.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24 is of direct concern to all members of the House as well as to future members because it will change the way political parties and candidates are funded in the future.

Bill C-24 is currently before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Could the chair of the committee inform the House as to the progress of the committee in its consideration of the bill and the issue of political financing?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, we had the curious scene of having the weekly business statement made in the lead off question and the lead off question made during business statements this week. Nonetheless, we all have very much confidence in the opposition House leader.

This afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will resume debate on the third reading of Bill C-13 respecting reproductive technologies. This will be followed by the report stage of Bill C-17, the public safety bill, as I indicated earlier, around 2:15 p.m.

On Monday we will commence report stage of Bill C-28. When this is completed we will return to the business not completed this week, adding Bill C-36, the archives and library bill introduced earlier this day.

On Tuesday evening the House will go into committee of the whole pursuant to Standing Order 81 in order to consider the estimates of the Minister of Health.

Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

In terms of when we propose to consider the report stage and third reading of Bill C-24, the election financing bill, I understand the committee is doing tremendous progress, thanks in large measure to Liberal MPs on the committee, and we hope to deal with that shortly after the House resumes.

Government Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, this question period is getting weirder by the minute.

I am pleased to inform the hon. member to continue with the parliamentary agenda, that the committee dealing with Bill C-24, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, is doing an excellent job under the leadership of all Liberal members and others too who support the legislation, notwithstanding the delays caused by the Alliance in the House of Commons at second reading. The bill will be back in the House probably in a couple of weeks time. Consultations are ongoing. Witnesses are being heard. And yes, after committee the next step is--

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess the question is whether anything will get done or this is just a slow motion charade.

The report suggests that the former finance minister will be blocking a large part of the government's legislation, many bills. One in particular I am going to ask about is Bill C-24 on election rules and political financing. We in the Canadian Alliance believe this is a bad bill for taxpayers, however it is important for all political parties that we know what the rules of the next election are going to be. Could the minister indicate whether the government intends to pass this through the House and Senate, and if so, when is it going to attempt to do that?

Points of Order

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

The right hon. member for the Conservative Party asks if he will be allowed to speak. Yes, he will be allowed to speak. Last weekend a resolution was passed at the party level. The first part of that serious resolution reads:

The National Executive of the Liberal Party of Canada affirms its support for the stated objectives of Bill C-24, advancement of transparency and increase in public confidence in the political process.

The president of the party voted for that resolution, in other words, endorsing the principles of Bill C-24. He would be more than happy to come.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek your guidance on a matter that came to public attention this morning. There would appear to be interference with the business of the House by officials of the Prime Minister's Office.

I refer to an article by Campbell Clark in this morning's Globe and Mail , wherein it is reported that the duly elected president of the Liberal Party of Canada, Mr. Stephen LeDrew, was prevented by the Prime Minister's Office from giving testimony to a committee of the House. The article stated:

In an unusual move that highlights a battle over the bill between the outgoing Prime Minister and his party, [the Prime Minister's] office told Liberal Party president Stephen LeDrew that it did not want him to testify on the changes to fundraising laws at a parliamentary committee yesterday.

Instead, the Prime Minister's Office asked the party's senior paid staffer, national director Terry Mercer, to give the Liberal view. Mr. Mercer said he would speak in favour of the bill. He was accompanied by Eddie Goldenberg, the Prime Minister's senior policy adviser and right-hand man, who rarely appears before Commons committees.

The article went on to say:

Mr. LeDrew said he found it unusual when [the Prime Minister's] chief of staff, Percy Downe, told him the PMO did not want him to testify at the hearing. “The Prime Minister wants Terry to give the evidence,” Mr. LeDrew said in an interview yesterday

Mr. Speaker, as an experienced parliamentarian, you know that irregularities before committees are usually dealt with in committee. However, from time to time, Speakers have implicated that in grave circumstances the Chair would be justified in intervening without a report from the committee.

It is known that there is a dispute between the Prime Minister and the president of the Liberal Party of Canada. That is not a matter for the House. What may be a matter for the House is an interference with witnesses or people who seek to be witnesses before committees of the House.

If Stephen LeDrew were prevented from giving testimony on Bill C-24, and I remind you that he seems to oppose the bill, having described it as, “dumb as a bag of hammers”, if he were prevented by the Prime Minister's agents from giving testimony to a parliamentary committee, that would seem to me to be a grave and serious matter. Therefore, I seek the guidance of the Chair.

On April 7, when dealing with irregularities in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources , Mr. Speaker stated:

That said, it is, I think, advisable, to remind the House of our usual practice with respect to procedural irregularities in a committee. Marleau and Montpetit, page 858, states: “If a committee desires that some action be taken against those disrupting its proceedings, it must report the situation to the House”.

At page 128, we read: “Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will only hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings upon presentation of a report from the committee which directly deals with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual member”.

In ruling that there are extreme cases where the Speaker would have a responsibility to hear a question of privilege on a matter that was before a committee, did the Speaker have in mind such a matter as interference with a potential witness? Or is there another avenue open to the House to ensure that the Prime Minister's agents do not stop the elected president of the Liberal Party from expressing his opposition to a measure that the Prime Minister has threatened to push through the House whether or not his party favours it?

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your courtesy in hearing me on this important issue.

Political Party Financing

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member is raising the issue as to whether or not the Liberal Party itself supports this bill. He quoted our party. Let me do it in return. I will read the motion: “The National Executive of the Liberal Party...affirms its support for...Bill C-24”.

So if that is what he is buttressing his argument on, I say to him that four of the five parties, including the Liberal Party, fully support this. Why does the hon. member not get onside?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are back to their old bag of tricks, gouging taxpayers. Bill C-24 will limit corporate donations to political parties and force taxpayers to make up the deficit in the Liberal coffers.

Taxpayers reject outright the suggestion that they should be forced to support financially parties they would not support politically. Even the Liberal Party president, Stephen LeDrew, calls the idea “dumber than a bag of hammers”, so why is the Prime Minister forcing taxpayers to pay the expenses of political parties they do not even support?

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts. For the benefit of those Quebeckers and Canadians listening, I will summarize the four important points that have convinced the Bloc Quebecois to support this bill.

The first establishes more serious offences for placing, or knowinglypermitting to remain in a place, a trap, device or other thing that islikely to cause death or bodily harm to a person. The second permits the use of as much force as is reasonably necessary onboard an aircraft to prevent the commission of an offence that wouldbe likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the aircraft or toany person or property in the aircraft. The third modifies the provision dealing with the provision of informationon oath in relation to weapons. Finally, the fourth creates an exemption to the offence of intercepting privatecommunications in order to protect computer networks.

Clearly, for the most part, the Bloc Quebecois will support the government on this bill, including the new offence about placing traps, for some obviously fundamental reasons.

This is now a scourge. The presence of organized crime in growing marijuana, sold in large quantities on the black market, has led to serious offences. To protect crops in homes or fields, criminals have invented all kinds of systems.

Obviously, the purpose of amending section 247 of the Criminal Code is to create harsher sentences for individuals committing criminal acts and who, by placing traps, cause serious harm to individuals. The Bloc Quebecois can only support the harsher sentencing proposed under section 247 of the Criminal Code.

Currently, this section establishes a maximum five-year term of imprisonment for every one who, with intent to cause death or bodily harm to persons, sets a trap that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to persons, no matter where it might be. Obviously, right now, it is only a five-year term for individuals setting traps and causing death or bodily harm.

The bill before us proposes stiffer penalties. If a trap actually causes harm, there would be a 10-year sentence. If a person sets a trap in a place used for a criminal purpose, the maximum sentence would be 10 years. If a trap set in a place used for a criminal purpose actually causes harm, the maximum sentence would then be 15 years. Finally, if the trap causes death, the maximum sentence would be life imprisonment.

Of course, you will have realized that this bill is based on a request by the International Association of Fire Fighters and other intervenors who have suffered injuries when responding to fires. We are seeing this often in everyday life: many fires are caused by people who grow marijuana for criminal purposes. They do it because it is profitable, of course, but such operations require very substantial electrical systems. Firefighters are responding to more and more fires in these situations. The law must be adjusted to fit the reality, since such operations are being discovered week after week.

The riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is obviously a beautiful area with woods, forests, lakes and rivers. At first, marijuana was only cultivated in corn fields. Now it is grown in the forests, often in privately-owned forests.

Marijuana growers often buy the land, or lease land from dealers who have purchased it. They put up lots of signs saying “Private property—Keep out”. Often, there will be a triggering system that—when someone enters the land—sets off a firearm or another device that could cause bodily harm.

In any event, all this is done by criminals to keep people away, sometimes men and women who simply want to take a walk in the forest.

Obviously, these systems have been refined. Marijuana is now longer only cultivated in corn fields or forests, but more and more in urban areas, inside houses.

So, in order to protect the crops, all kinds of more or less sophisticated equipment is installed to try to discourage visitors and keep away unwanted people. These are often honest citizens who want to visit properties, who knock on doors for whatever reason. That is when they find out who they are dealing with.

Fire fighters and police officers and others who arrive on the scene are confronted with threats to their safety or are injured by traps and other devices designed to keep people out.

It is important to understand this, to strengthen this bill and set appropriate sentences for all of these criminal acts. It is unthinkable that in our society right now there are criminal groups that use devices that harm others in an attempt to protect their criminal investments.

Again, the Bloc Quebecois supports these amendments to section 247 of the Criminal Code to strengthen measures and to apply the maximum sentence, imprisonment for life for any person who causes death by setting a trap or device to discourage visitors.

Obviously, the whole issue of marijuana is complex for people who are following this debate. The cultivation of marijuana is completely illegal. Cultivation is not allowed; however, people do have questions because of legislation passed by Parliament.

People need to understand that there is a certain type of use of marijuana that is permitted. This is the use of marijuana for therapeutic purposes. This use was recognized right here in the House. Legislation was passed to allow individuals who need it to obtain permission to use marijuana for therapeutic purposes.

Obviously there has been so much controversy that, as we speak, even those who have authorization have had it withdrawn. In the next few weeks I shall have an opportunity to bring to the House a petition specifically intended to support those who need marijuana for therapeutic purposes for an illness. We are not talking about just any ordinary sickness, but of serious and fatal diseases. Often these people find comfort in the therapeutic use of marijuana. It is as simple as that, and it is legal.

This is hard for our audience to understand. Marijuana is illegal, growing it is illegal, but there are patients who need it who can obtain permission for its therapeutic use, on a doctor's recommendation.

This has, however, become so complicated that even doctors no longer dare make recommendations. Yet this use is permitted by law for therapeutic purposes, by prescription of course. That is why the Government of Canada has even authorized the government-monitored growing of marijuana to provide a supply on the legal market for patients needing it for therapeutic purposes.

It must be kept in mind, however, that there is currently a whole debate going on at the Department of Justice as well as within the opposition parties on the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana is still illegal. If someone is picked up by the police on simple possession, he or she will end up with a criminal record and all the problems that go with it. Parliament is looking at how marijuana can be made legal. If someone has in his possession an amount of marijuana that is under a certain amount—what is termed simple possession—only for personal use, this would no longer result in a criminal record. It would be decriminalized. This position, which is being discussed in Parliament, will come to pass very soon, or so we hope.

Marijuana is still illegal, however, as is its cultivation. This is particularly the case when it is passed around by people in a group or when criminal organizations are involved.

In that context, I will remind members of the position of the Bloc Quebecois and the very important motions that it proposed when Bill C-24, the anti-gang legislation, was before the House. These motions dealt with those people who grow marijuana and become criminals.

Those who are watching us today must understand. People often think that there is nothing wrong in growing marijuana to earn a little extra cash to make ends meet. However, it is still a criminal activity. When Bill C-24, the anti-gang legislation, was passed, the Bloc Quebecois was calling for much stricter measures for gang members.

We proposed two measures. The first was to criminalize passive membership in a gang. This did not necessarily mean wearing the colours of biker or other gangs, but it applied to those who grow marijuana knowing that it is bought by criminal organizations and sold on the black market through a network and so on.

We wanted Bill C-24, the anti-gang legislation, to criminalize passive membership in a gang, but the Liberal government rejected the idea. Again, this would have sent a clear message to those men and women who may decide to grow marijuana just for fun, to make a little extra cash. Then they expand their operation. They do that in their own home and find it quite amusing. They sell their crop and make some money. Doing that is just like being a member of a criminal organization. Obviously, should the opportunity arise, the Bloc Quebecois would recommend once again that the anti-gang legislation be amended to criminalize passive membership in a gang.

Second, what we wanted, when the anti-gang legislation, Bill C-24, was adopted, was to reverse the burden of proof. Currently, the burden of proof rests on the State or the Crown. People are innocent until proven guilty. What we wanted, once it had been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that an accused belonged to a criminal organization, was for the Crown not to have to prove that the former's assets were the proceeds of criminal activities. We wanted, once it was proven that a criminal was part of a crime gang—so he was automatically considered a member of the gang and as having committed criminal acts—then, for that individual to prove how he had acquired his assets.

Once again, it is too easy for some criminals to get off. It is all too easy for criminals to get off, but they keep their assets because the Crown has not managed to prove that these are the proceeds of a crime.

The solution was simply to reverse the burden of proof. In this respect, the Bloc Quebecois was not alone in making this proposal. This proposal has been adopted by other countries. I will name the other countries that enacted legislation in which the burden of proof with regard to the proceeds of crime has been reversed. They are Australia, Austria, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and Great Britain. Each of these countries has reversed the burden of proof. More may do so too.

Again, this would be a wake up call for the men and women who, too often, do this for fun. They do not think it is very dangerous to grow marijuana on private land or property belonging to other people, or at home. They make a bit of cash. All this to say that these people are clearly members of criminal organizations. They are criminals.

If Bill C-24, the anti-gang legislation, had been amended the way the Bloc Quebecois wished, these people would have been considered passive criminals. Then, if the burden of proof had been reversed, we would have even been able to get at their assets and say, “You are going to have to prove to us that you acquired all the assets you now possess in some way other than through crime and, if you cannot, we will seize them all: your car, boat, motorcycle and ATV”. Of course, that would cover all the assets these persons might own which they could not prove they had acquired by honest means.

That is the position the Bloc Quebecois is defending and will always defend, with respect to the proceeds of crime.

Once again, with regard to the bill before us this morning, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the amendment to section 247 of the Criminal Code whose purpose is to increase the penalties for those who set traps to defend places used for criminal purposes, such as growing marijuana.

This bill also makes it possible to use force on board an aircraft. At present, the Criminal Code of Canada gives any citizen the right to use necessary force to prevent commission of a criminal act. Obviously, what this bill adds is clarification. If you find yourself on board an aircraft registered in Canada, flying outside Canadian airspace, you are permitted to use the necessary force to prevent commission of a criminal act.

Obviously, this is in response to the events of September 11, 2001, and to the Tokyo convention. This authorizes, among other things, the use of necessary force to prevent the commission of a criminal act on board an aircraft.

I will conclude with a comment on intrusion detection systems. In its explanations, the department asks for the power to authorize the use of intrusion detection systems. That could be in conflict with the respect for privacy. The Bloc Quebecois has serious concerns regarding the protection of privacy. We do not want personal information to become the property of the state in such cases.

Political Party Financing

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

Mr. Speaker, the House leader does a great job of feigning outrage, but the fact is that every bill he has sponsored for the past 10 years has ended up costing taxpayers a fortune.

He has wasted tens of millions of dollars trying to shut down third party advertising during elections. Now he wants to force taxpayers to spend at least $30 million a year to fund political parties.

Why will he not do the right thing for the taxpayers of Canada: scrap Bill C-24 and show us that his party can raise the money it needs from the people it claims to represent?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very strange question if I have ever heard one.

The hon. member is telling us that he is against Bill C-24 that gives greater transparency in the electoral process. He is against transparency. He is against those measures by which we register constituency associations. He is against banning corporate contributions. He is against banning labour contributions.

Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of transparency and four out of the five parties in the House agree with us.

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

Mr. Speaker, all of the funding scandals which preceded the introduction of the political financing bill were on the government side of the House. No wonder most Canadians think they have to be donors to the Liberal Party in order to get a government contract. The Canadian Alliance would have been happy to stick with the existing rules, even though we stand to gain the most if Bill C-24 passes.

Why can the Liberals not do as we do, scrap Bill C-24 and raise the money they need from their supporters instead of fleecing the Canadian taxpayers yet again?

Budget Implementation Act, 2003

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget bill. Before I turn to some of the specifics in the portfolio of the Solicitor General I would like to make a few points in general on the budget itself.

I feel that the 2003 budget, being a balanced budget, is a people's budget. It is a true Liberal budget which deals with the areas of concern to Canadians. Be it health care, families and communities, policing and law enforcement for which I have responsibility, sustainable development, research and development, it is truly a Liberal budget. On top of that we are maintaining the kinds of tax cuts that were put in place in previous budgets which were a historic high in terms of tax cuts in this country, something even the other side asked for but is always demanding more no doubt.

I want to put the budget in perspective. I understand that the opposition parties have a job to do and have to be critical. They are a little over critical sometimes. I understand that sometimes they do not really mean it; they are just trying to play the part.

However, I want to put things in perspective. I will turn to a couple of media reports. Obviously, the business press is not always friends of the Government of Canada, that is for sure, but I will turn to the March 8 report on business in the Globe and Mail . The headline on the business page reads “Canada's job boom rolls on” and goes on to say “Flabbergasting employment gain comes in at more than four times the forecasts”.

The article by Janet McFarland states: “Canada's economy continued to far outstrip all economists' expectations in February, creating 55,200 new jobs across virtually all sectors”, and it goes on from there.

Robert Spector, who is a senior economist at Merrill Lynch Canada Inc., had this to say:

Canada is the only economy creating jobs in a meaningful way. It's got the only central bank raising interest rates, [and] it's the only G-7 country running a budgetary surplus.

That is pretty good news. Sometimes if we were to listen to opposition comments we would think nothing positive was happening.

However, let me turn to another newspaper, the National Post , which is certainly not a friend of the Government of Canada most times when we read its articles. Let us turn to the Financial Post page. The headline states on the same day, Saturday, March 8, “Economies out of step”. It states that the United States fears a double-dip recession and it talks about the difficulty the Americans are having. We certainly do not want them to have difficulty in their economy, but on the other side it states that Canada is on a roll, and that “job miracle stuns market, pushes dollar to three year high”. It goes on with something similar to what the Globe and Mail said, which was that this is the only country in the G-8 with a surplus.

That is pretty good news and we need to keep that in perspective. Our economy is doing well because of how the Liberal Party of Canada governed the country over the last 10 years. Let us not take that away from the Government of Canada today.

How did we get to this position? You know well, Mr. Speaker, because you were amongst us in the 1993-95 period when we had to make the hard decisions.

The government and this party made those decisions so that we could be in this position today where we have choices, the choices I talked about in having a real, true Liberal budget that deals with the concerns of Canadians in their homes, communities, social programs, economic development, and research and development. That is the kind of progress we want to see. We should be congratulating all the backbenchers, cabinet ministers, and the whole party right to the grassroots in terms of the kinds of decisions and progress that we have made to get to where we are today.

Let me turn for a moment to the Solicitor General's portfolio. Specifically, I want to deal with the issue of public safety and national security because there are individuals out there who do not believe we are doing enough. I believe that this country has a lot to be proud of in terms of its national security and public safety position. We have done a tremendous amount in the last three years.

I want to speak about the public safety and anti-terrorism funding provided in budget 2001 because those moneys are still rolling out and we are still building on those initiatives. In terms of what is coming out of that PSAT funding, $7.7 billion over five years, we funded the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police workshops for communications and training so that police and law enforcement officials could do a better job on the ground in terms of policing.

Mr. Speaker, I neglected to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kitchener Centre.

We have provided funding to the provinces on public key infrastructure for secure communications. We have implemented new legislation. Training is already being provided to police and prosecutors through Bill C-36, the Anti-Terrorism Act, and I have listed a number of entities under that act who we do not want operating or being supported by any individual in this country. We have also implemented Bill C-24 dealing with organized crime.

On policing and intelligence we have set up integrated border enforcement teams. I have had the opportunity to visit a few of those. In that area we are working together with our counterparts in the United States and doing a better job in terms of policing at our border where the RCMP, local jurisdiction police forces, CSIS, customs, and on the United States side the American coast guard and their local law enforcement agencies, sometimes the FBI or the CIA, are working together to provide better security for Canadians at our border. We are doing an excellent job there.

We have set up integrated national security enforcement teams. At the Canada-U.S. border security side, we have set up new technology at border crossings. We have put in place better equipment for detecting explosives. We have made infrastructure improvements in terms of highway and commercial vehicle processing centres. On critical infrastructure protection and emergency preparedness, we have improved our laboratories. We have put in place heavy urban search and rescue equipment and we are working, with training and equipment, on improving our ability to handle chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear problems.

In this budget specifically, building on our public safety and security aspects, we have put in place an additional $50 million this fiscal year and $25 million next year for security contingency reserves. We have put in place $46.6 million over the next two years to continue the integrated proceeds of crime initiative. We expanded our first nations policing program by an additional $42 million and put $30 million a year toward a coordinated national enforcement approach to strengthen the investigation and prosecution of the most serious corporate frauds in market illegalities.

I also want to emphasize that we are continuing to adequately fund and improve the funding for the RCMP, CSIS, Correctional Service Canada and for the parole board.

We can all be proud of the job that the government is doing, in terms of public safety and national security for Canadians, so we remain at our place on top of the world.

Canada Elections Act

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

Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-24, the main motion, the member for Fundy—Royal and the member for Kings—Hants will be voting in opposition to the motion.

[The Speaker]

Since the vote has been applied in reverse, I declare the motion for second reading of Bill C-24 carried. Accordingly, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent in the House that the vote on the previous motion be applied in reverse to the vote on the main motion on Bill C-24 and to the vote on the motion on Bill C-2, with the addition to the Liberals voting of the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, the member for Scarborough East, the member for Oakville and the member for Scarborough Centre.

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion for second reading of Bill C-24.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, March 17, it is my duty to put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill C-24.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Business of the House

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

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That at 5:30 p.m. this day, when the Speaker puts all necessary questions to dispose of second reading of Bill C-24, the bells to call in the members shall ring for not more than 15 minutes.

Canada Elections Act

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among House leaders and pursuant to that consultation I would like to move a motion that has received the consent of all House leaders or a representative in the case where the House leader was not available. Following that, I will be making another announcement. I move:

That all questions necessary for the disposal of the second reading of Bill C-24 shall be put without further debate or amendment at the end of the time provided for Government Orders on March 18, 2003.

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-24.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to debate Bill C-24 that we support, obviously, in principle. In this bill, there are numerous provisions that are light years away from the current political financing legislation.

Of course, substantial improvements could be made. I will give examples shortly. Nevertheless, I must first tip my hat to the government party for finally seeing the light on the road to Damascus and introducing some amendments to the federal electoral legislation, so that parliamentarians and political parties will no longer come under undue pressure from major contributors or, at least, so that parliamentarians and political parties will no longer appear to come under undue pressure from major contributors.

Nonetheless, I must say that it is easy to make amendments when they do not commit you to anything. I will come back to this later. The Prime Minister was careful to propose this amendment to the existing federal electoral legislation at the very end of his career, ensuring of course that the new provisions would not apply to the current Liberal leadership race that will decide his own successor.

It is interesting that the Prime Minister waited more than 35 years after his political career began to suddenly become the advocate for such an amendment to the Canada Elections Act.

Need I point out that since it was first elected in 1993—if we exclude the by-election in 1990—the Bloc Quebecois has not stopped pushing for the electoral legislation to be amended to include the principles of public financing in effect in Quebec.

Let us remember that public financing has two key components: first, contribution ceilings and second, a formal ban on anyone other than voters contributing financially to political parties.

The government has taken up a few provisions in these two pillars, but has vehemently opposed any kind of amendment that might have come from the pressure, proposals, amendments and motions by the Bloc Quebecois. The government has also been very careful to wait a few years before making these proposals, so that people might forget that these provisions had been moved by an opposition party.

That would be unthinkable. How could the government publicly admit that is way introducing legislation initially suggested by an oppossition party? The government saw to it that people would forget that the idea came from an opposition party and, all of a sudden, it takes it out of our hat and says, “We have just made an extraordinary discovery; we are proposing a legislative change that will be absolutely revolutionary and will ensure that, suddenly, our citizens trust our political institutions more”.

Some discovery. Perhaps it would have been a good idea if the government had discovered it before. I guess that, on the Liberal side, it takes a few years before they finally take action.

Must I remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois made a number of proposals to this effect. In 1994, my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, who was then the member for Richelieu, moved a motion to this effect in the House. Of course, it was defeated, thanks to our colleagues in the governing party.

A little later on, in 1997, the present leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, also made a proposal along the same lines. When we debated Bill C-2 in the House and in committee, the Bloc Quebecois came back with a number of proposed amendments, which the government wasted no time rejecting.

Eloquent speeches were made in this House and in committee, in particular by the government House leader, as he was then also. He had a brief stint as Minister of Public Works and Government Services, but was not there long, for reasons known to us all. I will read some excerpts from the very wise comments made by the government House leader at that time.

In the House Procedure and Affairs Committee, the Government House Leader stated:

The Lortie commission has recommended neither that only individuals be allowed to make contributions nor that a maximum be established for contributions. Moreover, where such rules do exist, two individuals sometimes make equivalent contributions right up to the limit in order to get around these constraints.

Really, now.

He subsequently answer a question by our colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who had a different political allegiance at the time, and was then in favour of public financing—and still must be—and perhaps may have made a modest contribution to this change in attitude on the government side.

His answer to our colleague for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was as follows.

Corporations and individuals have virtually identical rights under the law. What a company can do legally as far as contributions are concerned, an individual can do also. The law does not treat them differently. It does not set higher ceilings for individuals than for unions or companies. Limits are the same for everyone. In other words, there is no ceiling in either category in terms of tax deductions. It is the same thing, provided it involves a taxpayer.

He said that there was equality between corporate and individual entities, as far as their ability to contribute to political parties was concerned.

Still in his answer, the government House leader said:

The system is transparent. I think that it is also accountable—

—as for banning contributions do not come from individuals that, this would be of very little benefit. Lortie said that it was so easy circumvent such a provision that it would not make sense. He may not have said it in those terms, but this is more or less what he meant.

We know what is happening today. Instead of the corporation paying $1,000, the president contributes $500, the vice-president $300 and the secretary $200, which means that the end result is the same. The only difference is that the system is less transparent instead of being more transparent. We no longer know from whom the money is really coming. It is coming from obscure individuals, instead of coming from GM, Ford, or some other corporation.

The government House leader went on to say:

Lortie also said that we would quickly use up the funds of political parties if we did that.

What caused this sudden about-face on the part of the government House leader? Why has he suddenly become the promoter of a limit, of a ceiling for corporate contributions? Will, all of a sudden, a corporation that would like to contribute $150,000 to the election fund of the Liberal Party of Canada, give $10,000 to its president, $10,000 to its vice-president, $10,000 to its secretary, and so on until the amount of $150,000 is reached? At least this is the possibility to which the government House leader alluded.

I guess that the government House leader was suddenly hit by the invaluable virtues of public financing, since he spoke so eloquently about it in this House.

My time is running out, but I will have the opportunity to address this issue again at the later stages of the bill, and I will examine more closely its various provisions and explain why these provisions seem satisfactory in some cases, but clearly unsatisfactory in others. In the meantime, we will have the opportunity to move a number of amendments.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-24, the purpose of which is to change political party financing.

From the outset, I want to say that the Liberal government has finally seen the light at the end of the tunnel. Quebec adopted similar legislation over 25 years ago.

So, before I go into the substance of my remarks, I would like to inform the hon. member of the Canadian Alliance who just spoke, as well as the hon. member who preceded him, that we heard the same thing in Quebec in 1976 and 1977 from the opposition parties. They objected to the financing system that Quebec has had in place for over 25 years now.

I would invite the hon. member to come to Quebec. He says that this bill will create paperwork, but this is not true. There is never too high a price to pay for democracy and transparency. Why do people criticize our governments so much these days, be it Liberal or otherwise? The whole sponsorship scandal was an example of a lack of transparency. The government's cronies had contributed to a slush fund.

After 25 years, Mr. Blanchet, the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec, said that the legislation in Quebec had an extraordinarily positive impact. Looking back on 25 years, he said that although it is wonderful, there is still room for improvement. It is still a work in progress.

It is time for this government to say to Canadian voters, “The time has come to turn the machine off, to stop having secret slush funds and to start being accountable to the Canadian public who finances us”.

In 1997, my colleague, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the current leader of the Bloc Quebecois, introduced a motion in this House saying that the Liberal Party of Canada should establish a public financing system. I will read the wording of the motion introduced on October 9, 1997:

That this House condemns the attitude of the Government, which refuses to introduce in-depth reform of the legislation on the financing of federal political parties even though the existing legislation allows for a wide range of abuses.

In 1994, my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour introduced a motion in this House that said:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation limiting solely to individuals the right to donate to a federal political party, and restricting such donations to a maximum of $5,000 a year.

This means that nine years later, the government, through the Prime Minister, finally saw the light at the end of the tunnel. I give credit to the Prime Minister of Canada, who gave credit to a great visionary, the former Premier of Quebec, the late René Lévesque. He was indeed a visionary. He believed that all political parties should be financed through the sale of $5 membership cards. This way, every taxpayer could say, “No one is more influential than I am”. This is another way of saying, “My hands are not tied”.

It is regrettable that the legislation will not apply to the Liberal leadership race. Imagine the amount of money that must be pouring into the Liberal coffers right now. This legislation should have been made retroactive to January 1, 2003. That is the amendment I would like to see made to the bill, to show that the Prime Minister wants to be transparent to the very end. I commend his political courage.

Over the holiday season, people in Jonquière were asking me, “Jocelyne, what will you say about the bill the Prime Minister will be introducing?” I told them that I would congratulate him, because it was high time that similar legislation was introduced. He may have looked at the bigger picture because he is about to leave and wants to leave a positive legacy. It is never too late to do a good thing. He may have acted late, but he acted, and that is worth pointing out.

I think we can never raises objections about what this might cost. And there is democracy to think about. There has been a lot of talk about democracy, lately. Reference has been made to the popularity of politicians. I have heard that we politicians are less popular than car salesmen. Imagine that.

If this bill enhances our credibility with our voters, that is great; I applaud that. I would like the Alliance members to visit Quebec—I will gladly go with them—to see how we have been doing things for the past 26 years, and how great and transparent our democratic system is.

Our system is not perfect, you know. The other day, I met the government House leader in the elevator, and he told me, “I have checked in Quebec. We have drawn great inspiration from the Quebec legislation”. I say way to go.

We are not all bad, we have some good points as well. But there are some irritants in this bill, for instance the appointment of returning officers. I have always found the way this is done very disturbing. In Quebec they are selected by competition. This is all part of a democratic election.

On the federal level, returning officers for a riding have a political affiliation. I find that reprehensible. I hope that this government will accept these amendments relating to partisan appointments. If the Election Act is revised, it must be done thoroughly so that the credibility of returning officers is improved.

I have always been active in Quebec elections and have always been very close to the returning officers because I knew they were apolitical. They could of course vote as their conscience dictated, but at least I knew they had been appointed by a democratic process.

I feel that this part of the bill is serious and that the government House leader must, if he wishes to show good faith, revise the part relating to these appointments.

Then there are the contribution ceilings. We in the Bloc Quebecois, like the Parti Quebecois, feel these should not exceed $3,000 per individual.

This is a great victory. Today we can say it is a victory for a sovereignist party serving in Ottawa, which has told the federal government and federal politicians that it is high time political parties got their funding from individuals and were not held hostage by large corporations.

I congratulate the government once again. The Bloc Quebecois will be there to help improve this bill. I do, however, feel this is an excellent step forward. I congratulate the Bloc Quebecois members who were part of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words about Bill C-24. Incidentally it is a very thick bill, about half an inch thick, and I know you are a busy man, Mr. Speaker, so you probably have not had the time to glance through it yet, but I have read it from cover to cover. Whilst it is half an inch thick, a lot of it is repetitive, repeating the same clauses over and over for nomination meetings, for registration of electoral district associations or for leadership races. Much of it is repeated.

In speaking to Bill C-24, I would like to reference Bill C-2, which was the bill on the major changes to the Canada Elections Act, which took place a couple of years ago, a bill for which I was critic and moved it through the House over about a three month period.

When Bill C-2 was going through the House, I proposed on behalf of the Canadian Alliance that we put an end to the patronage appointments of Elections Canada whereby the government appoints all of the returning officers and most of the field staff for Elections Canada. The Chief Electoral Officer had begged us to allow him to select and appoint his own staff, because it is completely inappropriate for the governing party to be appointing key personnel in what is supposed to be an independent body. The minister at the time argued that this was a ridiculous suggestion because it would cost too much and increase the bureaucracy at Elections Canada, and therefore we should not waste our money on it.

However, when we look at Bill C-24, what do we find? An enormous bureaucracy being set up to register and track the reports of electoral district associations. I have already spoken with the Ontario chief electoral officer because Ontario does have exactly this type of system, and it is very intensely administrative in nature. It requires enormous amounts of paperwork. It requires elections people to follow up constantly with riding associations or electoral districts to get the paperwork done. This is going to cost much more and be much more complicated than anything that was proposed to get rid of patronage in Bill C-2, so I really think the minister was playing politics at the time.

In Bill C-24, the government is also setting up a very complicated process for nominations. The government has argued that what it is trying to do is level the playing field to make it easier for disadvantaged people to take advantage of the possibility of becoming candidates for political parties.

I am convinced that most of the government members have not bothered to read the bill. They probably took a look at the half inch thickness and decide not to attempt it. However, if we really read the bill we will see that there are at least 15 pages of requirements for people getting involved in a nomination meeting. Now if we are talking about people who are traditionally disadvantaged, for example, as they would argue, women in the community who may not have the business contacts to help them get big donations to start a nomination meeting, those same people will not have the contacts who have the accounting skills or the management skills to run the sort of paperwork that is required for a nomination race.

So I would argue that the government is very misguided in what it has done in this bill and I think again it is playing politics. What it is actually trying to do, while it pretends to be arguing in favour of the disadvantaged, is creating a situation whereby those people will be excluded. It will be restricted to people who have the business contacts, the skills and the ability to manage a very complicated nomination race procedure.

The bill also perpetuates the unfair 50 candidate rule, which requires parties, in order to be registered and to have registered riding associations, to run 50 candidates in an election. The courts have struck down that provision. They have said that it is unfair and that it is inappropriate. In discussions in this House and in committee, all of the parties except the Liberal Party agreed that number 12 would be appropriate, which is the number that is recognized in the House as being appropriate for recognition of party status. So again the government is perpetuating unfair, anti-democratic practices while it still argues out of the other side of its mouth that the bill is an improvement.

It has also continued to maintain the gag law in the bill. That is the part of the Canada Elections Act that prevents third parties from arguing their perspective during election campaigns. The gag law has been struck down three times in the courts, yet the minister, even as late as yesterday, was still arguing that it was appropriate to keep that gag law in the Elections Act.

He has wasted tens of millions of dollars fighting it in the courts. It gets struck down every time. He argues that the basis for putting the gag law back into the Elections Act is that there was a court ruling in Quebec which justified the use of a gag law and restrictions on spending of third parties.

What he fails to say every time he quotes that Quebec court judgment is that the judgment was about referenda, not elections. Referenda, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you know, are about either a yes or a no answer. They are about one issue and the answer is either yes or no. It seems perfectly reasonable that we might put limits on who can argue for a yes and who can argue for a no in order to have a level playing field with both groups having access to the same amount of resources and money, but an election is a multi-faceted event with numerous issues, some of which are local and some of which are national, and there are literally hundreds of thousands of different issues that need to be argued.

To try to transpose a court ruling in Quebec to do with referenda into a general election status in this bill is completely inappropriate. The minister knows it. I have begged him to stop wasting taxpayers' money on these court cases and he continues to do it. In fact, he is a disgrace because he has wasted money on the gag law and he is now going to waste enormous amounts of money on a complicated process for nomination meetings. During all of that time he accuses us of trying to waste money by putting real democracy into the act, by getting rid of the patronage appointments that the Prime Minister does for Elections Canada.

Incidentally, there are returning officers who do not turn up to work at Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer is unable to do anything about it. Unless he can convince the governor in council, which means the Prime Minister, to cancel the appointment of one of his cronies to the returning officer position, there is nothing that can be done. The end result is that incompetent party hacks get appointed to the positions in Elections Canada that should be filled by skilled people who are non-partisan.

I would like to urge the government to be open to considering changes in the bill. Perhaps I am being a little naive, because the bill is going to be rammed through and we all know that. We are going get this public funding whether we agree with it or not. But I would hope that the government might be open to taking a look at a fairer way of allocating the public funding. The way that it is set up at the moment, the funding is given on the basis of the number of votes that were achieved by a party in the past election. Really, that rewards past electoral success and not necessarily the popularity of the party as it stands at the present time.

I heard a very creative suggestion, for example, and I am not putting this forward as CA policy at this time, it is just a creative suggestion that I heard, which was that maybe it would be fairer to base the funding on the number of registered electoral districts that a party has.

For example, for every registered electoral district that a party could maintain across the country, it would receive a certain allocation of funds. That would make it fair because it would reward parties that were trying to become national in scope. It certainly would not be a disadvantage to the ruling Liberal Party because it maintains riding associations, or electoral districts, in every riding in the country so its allocation would be exactly the same. Parties like the Canadian Alliance, which is gradually establishing riding associations across the country, would also gain benefits as it established these, and it would really make a judgment about how serious a party was at being a national player. For parties like the Bloc that tend to be restricted to one region, it would not penalize them either, because it would be running electoral districts or associations in every riding in that province and so it would still get its allocation.

That seems to me, just on the surface of it, perhaps a fairer way of doing it. If we really must have public money put into this, I would hope the government might be open to suggestions like that from outside interests.

In closing, I will say that I think the bill is pretty badly flawed. There has not been much chance in 10 minutes to get into the real meat of it, but I will repeat my hope that the government would be open to some further suggestions in committee as to how we might improve the bill.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24 on behalf of all my constituents of Saanich--Gulf Islands.

I have to admit that I am absolutely puzzled and greatly amazed at how the Prime Minister, after spending close to 40 years in this place, all of a sudden has decided that he wants the taxpayers to fund political parties, although I agree that there were problems with how political parties received contributions in the past.

It absolutely boggles the mind when we get into the details of what the government, the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party is promoting in the bill. I will get into some of those details. After being here for almost six years, I am actually stunned that the government would even present a bill such as this.

I will go over a few of the details of exactly what Bill C-24 proposes. First, the Prime Minister has stated that the government is trying to limit union and political donations to political parties. This is something that I do not think is all that bad of an idea. It is something I could actually go along with.

However the Prime Minister tries to hide behind that veil, that this is about restricting corporate and union donations. That is the furthest thing from the truth in the bill as far as I read it. This is about taking $100 million of taxpayer money and forcing taxpayers to give that to political parties. I will get into some of the details of exactly how that is done.

Right now there is a tax credit of up to 75% for political donations to political candidates. The government would be doubling that limit to $400 from $200 for individuals. I will get into the impact of that in a minute.

Election expenses for political parties during an election now receive a 22.5% rebate on allowable expenses, which I say is questionable. If the government actually wanted to fix that it could have talked about eliminating all these rebates. What is worse, the government has now more than doubled that rebate up to 50%.

What would happen if someone in my riding wanted to donate $400 to any candidate in a political election? Let us say that the person wanted to donate $400 to my campaign. At the end of that campaign it would cost the taxpayer $300 immediately because that person would get a 75% cash rebate on his or her income tax.

When I spend that $400 during the election, I get a 50% rebate, another $200 when I spend that $400. What would that cost the taxpayer? When someone donates $400 to my campaign it would cost the taxpayer $500 right off the top, not to mention all the bureaucracy and all the cost of processing it which would add more.

That is unconscionable and wrong. Political parties would be in much the same boat. People would receive receipts and then receive a tax credit on their income tax when they donated to political parties. Those political parties would have their election expenses increased to 50% when they were at 22.5%, which would be more than double.

The other thing is that in order to be eligible for those rebates, which again would go mostly to major political parties, the parties would need to receive at least 15% of the vote. The government decided that was not enough so it has lowered that to 10%.

This is the frustrating part of the bill. The government is hiding behind the veil that it is about limiting or regulating corporate and union donations. We have heard a number of ministers say that they have undue influence and put pressure on the government. They place pressure on the government and obviously the cabinet, the executive branch of the government. We cannot legislate integrity. We cannot legislate honesty.

It is mind boggling what the Prime Minister has come up with after 40 years in this place. I do not know if he has a scorched earth policy. He knows he is leaving in a year. Perhaps he is trying to blow up everything behind him as he leaves this place and make it the most miserable place he can as he expects the member for LaSalle—Émard will be his successor. I have no idea what his motives are.

When we follow his rationale, it boggles the mind. The Prime Minister, the member from Shawinigan, would argue that it is unfair to have the money of shareholders and unionized workers contributed without their consent. There is a rationale that it is not right if unions donate money to political parties without their members' consent. Imagine, it is not right if corporations donate money to political parties without their shareholders' consent.

Who in heck does he think the taxpayers are? They are the shareholders of the public purse. Is it okay to donate their money, to give their money, $100 million in an electoral cycle, to political parties without their consent?

It is ridiculous that this bill is even before the House. We wonder why there is so much cynicism politics. The government spends $400 million to $450 million a day. That is the amount of the federal budget. There is $164.5 billion for this year. Divide that by 365. I have not done the math but it is around $450 million a day.

And this is how the government chooses to spend it after we have witnessed a billion dollar fiasco in the gun registry, after we have witnessed the Groupaction advertising contracts, after we have witnessed the Department of Human Resources Development Canada billion dollar boondoggle. The members across the way laugh and make jokes. It is not a laughing matter when they fritter away billions and billions of dollars in one department after another, from the justice department to HRDC to public works with the advertising contracts. Of course, all of the departments are trying to funnel money into the Prime Minister's riding.

It is wrong. It is absolutely unconscionable that the government even has the courage to bring this bill forward and have its members stand up in the House and suggest that it is okay.

The frustrating part is that the government is trying to hide behind the veil that it does not want to have undue influence from unions and corporations. That is a joke. If we look at the money and follow some of the donations to the Liberal Party and then look at the contracts that are awarded and the grants that are given out, of course the public is cynical about what is going on.

I am absolutely appalled by this legislation. I think it is wrong even though the biggest beneficiary would be the Canadian Alliance.

I will conclude by saying this is about $100 million of taxpayers' money. The government has forced it on the political parties and increased the rebate and it is dead wrong. The government should be looking at eliminating the rebates.

Again I am at a loss for words on how bad this is. It is nothing short of stealing money, taking it from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. It is wrong. I am opposed to it. I urge every member not to follow in the Prime Minister's wake.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not interfere in the correspondence between those who have and those who have not been working over recent weeks.

This afternoon we will return to the second reading of Bill C-24, the elections finance bill. We would then call Bill C-20, the child protection bill. We would then move to Bill C-23 respecting a registry for certain offenders. I understand that there would be an interest on the part of some hon. members that after the initial speech by the parliamentary secretary we would adjourn the debate for the convenience of some members.

Tomorrow we will deal with Bill C-13 respecting reproductive technologies. I am still uncertain about one additional item, mainly that of the Senate amendments to Bill C-12, the sports bill. I will get back to hon. members later to see if we can deal with this item tomorrow, but that is still uncertain at this time.

Monday shall be an allotted day. On Tuesday and Wednesday we shall resume the budget debate.

Thursday and Friday of next week will be on legislation that we have before us. I will be speaking with House leaders early in the week to adjust that in view of the tremendous progress made on legislation this day to which the hon. House leader of the opposition in the House referred to earlier.

I wish to conclude by thanking all hon. members for the progress on legislation so far this day.

Canada Elections Act

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-24, which I could perhaps describe as plagiarizing the provincial legislation in effect in Quebec. I will not, however, since the bill before me today is not a carbon copy of the Quebec electoral law, which has been in effect for 26 years.

All week, I have been pleasantly surprised to hear my colleagues opposite speak highly of the late René Lévesque. To hear people across the way speak of René Lévesque like that warms the heart of a sovereignist, very much so.

Twenty six years ago, René Lévesque had a vision of the democratic political process. He had a vision of how to ensure that political parties are not bought, through contributions. Lévesque had a vision indeed.

The problem I have with this bill we are debating concerns the amount an individual may contribute, namely $10,000. That is a huge amount. I believe it is still a substantial enough amount to enable lobbyists to influence certain decisions.

I will give an example. Take the Minister of National Defence, a former vice-president of the Royal Bank in Toronto. He can very easily call up 20 of his friends and ask them to each write him a cheque for $10,000. Twenty times $10,000 is $200,000 that the Royal Bank would have contributed through the back door, or the side door.

Similarly, the Prime Minister of Canada can very easily pick up the phone and call Paul Desmarais at Power Corporation, asking him for $10,000. His friend Paul and his gang would come up with the $10,000.

The hon. member for LaSalle--Émard can very easily call up his buddies in shipping companies and say he needs $10,000. These are buddies from the shipping industry. Once again, only people in a certain category will be able to afford this kind of contribution. This $10,000 will allow them to continue influencing government decisions.

This is unacceptable. We are proposing that the limit be $3,000, the same as in the Quebec electoral law.

The other problem is also a serious one.

I would like to, if I may, come back on the issue of individual contributions. We in the Bloc Quebecois do not support corporate contributions. However, this is the 21st century, and contributions of $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000 as proposed in the bill could be considered acceptable. However, we recommend instead that there be no corporate donations at all.

The other problem I see, and that I am compelled to talk about, is the famous issue of the appointment of returning officers in each riding. The current practice will be continued, namely that the governor in council will appoint all returning officers. Currently, with the Liberal Party in power, it will appoint its Liberal cronies, former MPs, former corporate directors.

As a result, when I have to discuss anything with my riding's returning officer, or if I have a complaint to file, I am dealing with a political opponent.

As is the case in baseball, I am starting out with two strikes against me. The system should be as it is in Quebec. Allow me to explain how things are done in Quebec.

The appointments of returning officers are done in several stages. First, the position is advertised in newspapers. Anyone who reads newspapers in Quebec can learn about the position. Candidates for the job undergo a written and oral exam. Afterward, a selection committee makes a decision. There are no representatives of political parties on the selection committee. As a result, returning officers in Quebec are apolitical. They do not talk about politics, just about how to apply the Act Respecting Electoral Lists during the election. That is what they do.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the bill before us in principle. However, the Bloc Quebecois would like to see the changes I have just mentioned.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure speak today to Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act regarding political financing.

The NDP has long been calling for the removal of big money from politics and supports this legislation in principle. However, the devil is in the details in every piece of legislation and we will be combing over the details of the bill to make sure that it is really moving us toward fairness and a more democratic system of political financing.

I would like to review in brief some of the contents of Bill C-24 and talk about the concerns we have with it, which we will continue to raise. First is the issue of individual donations. The legislation allows individuals to donate $10,000 a year to any party, candidate or riding association. All contributions will be indexed for inflation. Individuals can donate in multiples of $10,000, for example, to the Liberals, to the Alliance, et cetera.

Our concern about this is that the amount is too high. We believe that this kind of money can still buy influence and the whole idea of this bill is to eliminate buying influence in our political system. The level should be set much lower. We would suggest something like $3,000, as it is in Quebec and Manitoba. The Canadian Labour Congress, the CLC, calls for $5,000. In addition, we would seek this amount as a limit for individual donations to a maximum amount for all parties, not to each party.

On the issue of corporate and union donations, the bill prohibits contributions to political parties from corporations, unions or other associations. As an exception, it does allow those organizations to contribute $1,000 annually to the aggregate of candidates, local associations and nomination contestants of a registered party. All contributions are combined under the limit of $1,000.

Again the NDP has a concern with this. Unions like the CAW, for example, would be considered as one unit no matter how many locals there are, but franchises of corporations, let us say Ford car dealerships, may be considered to be separate entities, each able to make a $1,000 donation. This is an inequity that we do not believe is fair. We must argue that all contributions be banned or that unions be given equal treatment.

On the issue of public funding for elections and between elections, the bill provides for an annual public subsidy to parties of $1.50 for every vote they received in the previous election. Based on the 2000 general election, the Liberals would receive $7.8 million annually, the Alliance $4.9 million annually, the PCs $2.4 million, the Bloc $2.1 million and the NDP $1.6 million. Had the $1.50 per vote been in place for the 1997 and 2000 elections, the NDP would have received more money than it received from union contributions, including the federal and provincial share of affiliation fees lost.

The bill extends the candidate rebates to those receiving 10% of the vote rather than the old 15% limit. It also increases the national rebate to 50% of allowable expenses for political parties from 22.5% and includes the cost of public opinion polling for the first time. Our concern is that the provision is not indexed and so will decrease in value over time. Contributions from individuals, corporations and unions are indexed. We must push for further indexing.

In terms of trust funds, several Liberal MPs, and perhaps others, have amassed large trust funds and we are not sure how the new legislation will treat trust funds. One interpretation is that they will continue to exist but could not be used for political purposes beyond the $1,000 annually that an association can donate to the candidates or riding associations. The NDP remains concerned that there will be an enormous temptation for some MPs to find ways to slip trust fund money into their political work and campaigns.

On the issue of third parties, if the government truly wants to remove the perception that big money rules politics, then it is even more imperative to limit the amount of money that third parties can spend during elections and on politics generally.

The amendments do not deal with third party expenditures. The existing elections act does limit expenditures of third parties but the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the National Citizens' Coalition challenge. The federal government is appealing that ruling.

Our concern is that the intent to get big money out of politics is severely undercut if third parties are free to spend what they want. Once the political parties have restricted themselves to accept only individual donations, it would follow that judges would find it harder to rule against legislation limiting the involvement of third parties.

In conclusion, the NDP offers its support in principle to Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. We will be working to make sure that it in fact is meeting the spirit of its intent. We will be working for specific amendments that will bring this legislation into line to benefit all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24 seeks to make fundamental changes to the way we fund political participants in the country.

I think all of us would agree that Canada's electoral system is one of the best in the world in terms of fairness and honesty. But as we know, democracy is a work in progress, which means we need to revisit our political and government systems from time to time to make sure they are doing the best possible job of serving Canadians.

One area requiring a second look, of course, involves the rules governing political financing. Let us look at requirements for financial disclosure. At present, the Canada Elections Act requires only registered parties and candidates to disclose contributions and expenditures to the Chief Electoral Officer. This effectively exempts other important players in the political process, such as electoral district associations and leadership and nomination contestants, from having to reveal where their money came from and how they spend it. In turn, this has reduced the transparency of the system and public confidence in it and has created what the Chief Electoral Officer refers to as the “black hole” of political financing.

We need to open up the system and give the public more and better information on what is going on behind the scenes. For example, we must address leadership contests. There are many going on in the House of Commons right now, all over the place. This is an area of great interest to Canadians. Little is known about how they are financed, which is strange given how important they are to the political landscape in this country. We need to know more about leadership contestants and who their supporters are. After all, one of them will eventually become the Prime Minister, the leader of the country, but of course that would be on this side.

The bill would make this possible by extending disclosure requirements for leadership campaigns as well as a number of other important activities. For example, once a party launches its campaign officially, leadership contestants would be required to register with Elections Canada. At that time, they would have to disclose all contributions received from their campaign up to that point.

They would also have to disclose contributions to their campaigns in each of the last four weeks prior to the date of the leadership convention. This responds to the criticism that filing a report six months after the contest is too late to be effective. Of course, contestants would still be required, six months after the end of the campaign, to disclose all contributions received and expenses incurred.

Once in place, these new measures would make important new information available to Canadians and open up this area to full public scrutiny, which would go a long way toward enhancing public confidence in the honesty and fairness of leadership campaigns.

Greater disclosure cannot by itself buttress public confidence and reassure Canadians that our approach to funding leadership campaigns is fair and above board, so the bill would ensure that only individuals would be able to make financial contributions to registered parties and leadership and nomination contestants. This is important since a recent Environics poll found that many Canadians feel that wealthy Canadians, large corporations and unions have too much influence on governments. In the same poll, almost two-thirds of respondents felt the government should stop campaign contributions from having too much influence on the government and two-thirds supported the idea of allowing just individuals to contribute to political participants.

The bill responds to this call for action by proposing a ban on corporate and union contributions except at the local level. Limits would be placed on individual contributions to remove any suggestion that well-to-do individuals could use large contributions to hijack government deliberations later on once the election is over. An annual ceiling of $10,000 would be placed on individual contributions to a registered party, its local associations, candidates and nomination contestants. Individuals would be allowed to contribute no more than $10,000 in total to the leadership contestants of a particular party.

These measures are tough, but they are not unusual nor do they represent a break with established Canadian practice, for such a prohibition has been in place since 1977 in Quebec and was recently implemented in Manitoba. They are in force in other countries around the world as well.

I want to reassure members that these measures would in no way interfere with leadership contests already under way. The bill would not apply to those contests that start prior to its coming into force, which would be either January 2004 or six months after the bill is passed by Parliament, whichever is later. This should provide enough time to put the necessary system in place while at the same time ensuring that both parties and contestants are able to adjust to the new measures.

Canadians have told us they want new approaches to funding our political system which would remove once and for all concerns that large donations by corporations, unions and well-off individuals give them undue influence over government. They want regulations to cover not only election campaigns, as is currently the case, but also nomination and leadership campaigns, which they see as equally important.

That is what the bill before us does today. It would provide greater disclosure and extend it to the new areas such as leadership campaigns. It would ban corporate and union contributions in a number of areas, including leadership campaigns, and limit what well-to-do individuals can contribute. This goes a long way to enhancing public confidence in the way we fund political activity in this country and that is why I support the bill.

As a former returning officer for a party and having filed audited papers in the city of Toronto for the Haliburton—Victoria—Brock area for a candidate who had won, when I took our audited statement in and was quite confident that it was well done, comprehensive and accurate, I was told by the person at the desk that it would be audited because it looked too good to be true. That person wanted to make sure that they would look at it in this light and go through every bit of it. I asked the person at the desk why they would audit one that they could read. The person turned around, showing me a bunch of shoeboxes full of returns that other people, losing candidates, had brought in and tied up with old shoelaces and said, “We're not going to audit those”. So I know that proper financial contributions listed in a such a manner that they are legible and which the Canadian public can read are the ones that hold the most weight.

I think we can enhance our electoral system. My riding is the second largest riding in southern Ontario. In my riding and the one next to it, we have one-third of the land in southern Ontario. We take up a large area. Contrary to what my friends in the Alliance would say, we do have the same Toronto influence on us. I do not cheer for the Toronto Maple Leafs, as I am more of a Montreal Canadiens fan, but when one lives 80 miles north of Toronto in a totally rural municipality--

[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.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to take part in this historic debate. I never thought I would see the day federal Liberal MPs would sing the praises of René Lévesque.

That is why I call this a historic debate, a bit late in coming, but better late than never, as they say. It is all part of the process of cleaning up politics.

What inspired the Prime Minister, at the end of his mandate, to finally decide to remedy the numerous shortcomings that existed in the way Canada's political parties were funded? It is not up to me to answer that question, but I am really glad to see that, at long last, the Canadian Parliament is taking action to make politics more democratic.

There is still much to be done, but at least this is a significant first step. That same step was taken in Quebec back in 1977. From that time on, MNAs had a free hand, because the voters of Quebec are the ones who decide what party they want to support. This is a free choice, with known rules and standards.

For a long time now, the Bloc Quebecois has been rising in this House to speak out against the major shortcomings in political party financing. Today I am delighted to hear the other side referring to René Lévesque as the one who changed the rules of democracy. I am proud to hear that, but I would point out that there a lot of time went by between 1977 and 2003. And we are only at this stage now.

When the whole business of the sponsorship scandal was raised, with all the media coverage it got, and the denunciations in this very chamber, with all the talk of Groupaction, the Prime Minister and all the Liberals knew very well that this situation arose because of the way the legislation stood at that time. But we still had to wait for changes.

Now there are some changes. Why did the federal government wait so long, why did it tolerate such major scandals as we have had here since the 2000 election?

I trust that the changes proposed by the government today are the start of a process of democratization in this House. First comes changes to political party financing. Next there will have to be some work on lessening pressure on parliamentarians, that is trying to democratize life in Parliament. We will have to discuss such things as the matter of voting along party lines, the matter of decisions being made without consulting the elected representatives of the people.

So that is democracy. The current Prime Minister—who will leave God knows when, officially at least in 2004, but in politics anything can happen—should not get to leave saying “I have made the most significant historical contribution in changing the party financing legislation”. There are other things that could be done. He could say, “I have waited so long to amend it; this must not be allowed to go on”. Above all, on the eve of a leadership race, it is important that those who will come after him uphold these changes.

Personally, I get the impression that the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard will be very tempted to revert to the old way of doing things. To talk about cleaning up the financing of political parties is one thing, but it is not so easy to address the issue of how candidates go about collecting money to fund their leadership campaigns. Having again benefited greatly from contributions from corporations, companies and friends of the party, they may well be tempted to revert to their old ways to pay them back.

I hope that in our debates in the next few weeks we will hear from these people and that they will make firm commitments to ensure that the historical step taken in this House with Bill C-24 does not disappear with the change in prime ministers.

In addition, all opposition parties, including the Canadian Alliance, should find more convincing alternatives than the one before us. The debate is far from over; it has only just begun.

I think that the people of my riding and all Quebeckers are proud today to see that the government is finally acting, the Bloc Quebecois having raised this critical issue of party financing countless times. Like the other parties of the National Assembly did when the PQ was defeated, the Liberal Party of Quebec respected the major changes made to the system. The people from my riding and from around Quebec expect that the future leader, the man or woman who will lead the Liberal Party of Canada, will uphold these changes. We must not backtrack, we must continue to move forward.

I think that the current debate needs to focus on the changes awaiting the Liberal Party of Canada, because that is the party in power. I invite all federal Liberals, especially those from Quebec, to make a public commitment to the voters, to say that they will uphold these changes. I invite them to promise to avoid going back, regardless of the political pressure that may be brought to bear on them during the leadership campaign.

In Quebec, the political parties remained faithful to what René Lévesque accomplished. I dare to hope that those who continue to make history in this House will remain faithful to these changes and that they will continue to speak highly of René Lévesque.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I never thought that I would rise in the House to thank everyone here for recognizing the work of René Lévesque. Maybe, someday, members will say, “You know, in the end, sovereignty-association for Quebec is a good thing. It would put an end to east-west tensions. Perhaps it is the way of the future to redefine a historic framework agreement”.

I hope that these historic changes being made will be upheld, and that the appreciation for René Lévesque's work will embrace more than simply the issue of party financing. That, too, is part of the evolution. That, too, is part of history.

In closing, once again, I am proud of the changes proposed in Bill C-24, but these changes must remain in place, regardless of who becomes the next Prime Minister.

This historic step must not be undone. We must uphold this change for the sake of all Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to speak to Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing). The two are closely tied together.

It was interesting the other day when the Prime Minister introduced the bill in the House. He stands here day after day, and defends himself and his government against scandal after scandal. He says over and over that everything is fine, everything is above board, and there is nothing going on that should not be and it is squeaky clean. On the other hand he brings in a piece of legislation and promotes it by saying it would clean up influence peddling. If there is not any, what is the problem here? I think an assumption we all must make is that there is a problem.

He indicated that this would make things more open and democratic. One of the members from the Liberal side talked earlier about being nominated. In some constituencies there is no nomination meeting. The Prime Minister parachutes a candidate and says it is the person he wants to run in that riding and that is who it is. In the governing party the Prime Minister has the right to not sign nomination papers. That is not democratic. It is certainly different from the way our party works.

If hon. members want to talk about fighting for democratic change, I do not think they should look across the House. They should look right here. That is something on which this party has based its policies and platform. There needs to be more democracy here in the House and throughout the system under which we operate. Time after time we have brought forward recommendations that could have been implemented. We have looked at all aspects of governance to see what could be done to make it more democratic and make Canadians feel that they have more of a say in what happens in governing the country.

However we have been turned aside. There were simple things like working with private members' business to make more bills votable allowing individual members the opportunity to have more of a say and to bring up issues that they were hearing from their constituents to put into law. However that is fought at every turn.

I believe the bill is proposing to take away from Canadians the opportunity to support who they think best represents their policies or what they feel is right for Canada and the Government of Canada. I have always maintained in my campaigns and in the campaigns of our party that if a person wants to donate, then that is great. People donate because they believe in the policies and platforms of a party and they believe in the candidate. If people donate because they expect to get something back in return they will be very disappointed. If people are donating to a political party because they think it will bring back some personal or corporate benefit to them, then indeed we do have a huge problem.

I will always remember that in the last campaign I received a cheque from an elderly widowed lady for a small amount. It was sent with an attaching note saying that this was all she had. She said it was all she could afford, but she wanted me to have it to use it to promote what my party and I believed in. That is what this is all about. If we take that away, if we make people donate through the tax system and contribute to parties in which they do not believe, that gets away from the whole aspect of what is right and what needs to be done in our political system.

I wish to do a recap on what the bill entails. 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. The way the bill is constructed, there would be many ways to get around that. The amount of individual contributions is high. I am sure that if a union or a corporation were to funnel some money into a party, then that would be able to be done, even under the new rules with the $10,000 for personal contribution. When we think about that, the maximum tax credit people could receive is for a donation of $1,275, so if they are donating over that, then it certainly is not to get a tax benefit.

Political parties are at the heart of a modern political and electoral system and are essential to a vibrant and viable democratic system. It is so important that different parties come forward to represent different views and represent different aspects of society.

Whether this should entail public funding, directly or indirectly and, if so, at what level or what level is appropriate is the debate today. At present, registered political parties are publicly funded through the tax system, deductions for contributions, and through the partial reimbursement of election expenses. I will get into that a little later.

Candidates are also reimbursed for a proportion of their election expenses, while contributors can take advantage of the favourable tax treatment of political donations. There is a compounding factor that I will mention. The bill proposes to enhance and extend that regime.

Currently, registered parties can be reimbursed for 22.5% of their election period expenses. Anything that is spent during the writ period, the federal party or the national party gets 22.5% of that back. The rate of reimbursement of electoral expenses for candidates is currently 50%. In our local campaigns we get back 50% of everything we spend during the writ period from the taxpayer.

If people donate $400 under the new proposal, they get a 75% tax deduction for that. When we as candidates put that forward, we get 50% of that back. This has a compounding effect and the taxpayer continually pays for campaigns.

With respect to individual candidates, the bill proposes that the percentage of votes a candidate must obtain in his or her riding to qualify for reimbursement of electoral expenses be lowered to 10% from 15%. That 15% has always been a platform where we want to try to keep our opposition or the people who we run against us underneath that because they do not get the rebate. It is an additional challenge when campaigning. Now that has been lowered to 10%.

The proposed bill provides for an annual allowance. I want people to understand that this is an annual allowance to registered parties in the amount of $1.50 per vote received by the party in the previous general election, provided the party has received in the last election either 2% of the valid votes cast nationally or 5% of the votes in the ridings where the party ran candidates. Every year between elections that $1.50 will come to political parties. This figure is apparently based on replacing what would be lost to corporate donations. I believe there are other reasons for that.

Let us look at what happened in 1993. In the previous election in 1988 the Progressive Conservative government had a majority. That majority was reduced from roughly 170 seats to 2 seats. Over that period of time the support for the party had dropped right through the floor. It had come down to about 2% of what it used to be. However during the period of time between elections it would have continued to receive $1.50 for everybody who cast a ballot for it in the last election. In the meantime its support had absolutely evaporated. Therefore, in the last couple of years before an election things can change dramatically. People who had voted for the party but no longer supported it would still be giving $1.50 per year.

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, which is eligible for a 75% tax credit from $200 to $400, and to increase accordingly each other bracket of the tax credit to a maximum tax credit of $650 for political donations of $1,275 or more. The Income Tax Act amendments in the bill will apply to the 2003 tax year and beyond.

If we raise the eligible tax credit to 75%, I know one gentleman at home who will be completely torn apart by this issue. He wants to donate to the Canadian Cancer Society, the Kidney Foundation of Canada, Child Find or others and he wants to get the same credit for that as he does for a political donation but he cannot.

In wrapping up, we cannot support the bill because it puts the onus of funding political parties on the taxpayer in general, instead of a person having the ability to support the party that he or she wants.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24, the details of which members have laid out in a number of ways, has to do with an important principle. It has to do with the principle of the appearance of government. Members will know that if it appears that something is so, that is almost as bad as if it were so.

We live in a society in which bashing politicians has become a national pastime. It is much like with the banks. I hate banks, but boy I love my bank. The job of a member of the opposition is to be critical and to try to slant the facts in a way which would discredit the government. Words such as “corruption” and “cronyism” continue to be thrown around to say that corporations are buying government favours and getting all kinds of work because they have somehow given money to a party.

The member is quite right. The perception of Canadians is that large corporate contributions have an influence on members of Parliament, on cabinet ministers, on bureaucrats and on government as a whole. Bill C-24 came forward to address the negative appearance of undue influence of corporations and unions on the Government of Canada and all those who are involved.

Canadians may not know as well as we do the kind of political bureaucracy that has been established which sustains the parliamentary democracy that we enjoy in Canada today. It is unlike that in the United States where there are virtually no limits on the amount of money that can play in politics. A congressman could spend anywhere from $1 million to $4 million on a campaign alone. People may ask themselves why someone would spend $1 million to $4 million to get a job that pays $200,000. It makes absolutely no sense. If we looked at the average net worth of a congressman, we would find that it is basically an elitist profession in the United States. It is the rich of the country who are governing a country of all economic walks of life and socio-economic diversity.

Canada enjoys a parliamentary democracy. People should understand it is important that there be political parties. It is important that those parties be vibrant.

Through the provincial and territorial wings of a party's offices, through the riding associations which are located in each of the 301 constituencies across the country, the members of those constituencies participate in the democratic process. They develop policy issues for their respective party. They continue to update, renew and review their positions on the important policy issues of the day. Virtually every policy issue is well researched and well articulated so that Canadians can understand not only what is the party's philosophy but also what is its platform, what is its vision for Canada and what that party believes Canadians want to see in their country in the decades to come.

Politics is about making decisions and making choices. This extensive process of political infrastructure operations requires funding. To protect that process and to ensure in particular that all Canadians have an opportunity to participate fully in our democratic political process, the Canada Elections Act and related rules guide us in how much can be spent on political contributions and expenses in elections.

Those rules are there so that every Canadian could become a member of Parliament. It is not a matter of money. The principle of a partially publicly funded system of political financing allows people to raise enough money, with the support of all Canadians through the tax credit system, to present their views and present their candidacy for a particular political party or as an independent.

The cross-section of the House today is much different from what people would imagine. We are not all lawyers. We are not all retired businessmen who have made our fortunes and we are now doing this. In this place there are teachers and farmers. There are academics. There are lawyers and medical doctors. I am a chartered accountant. There are ranchers, truckers and chiropractors. There are former municipal and provincial politicians. When I look around I see a microcosm of Canada in this place.

Canadians should know that when all Canadians have an opportunity to participate in the democratic parliamentary process and all Canadians have an opportunity to run for public office and become members of Parliament, that is a good thing. One of the reasons the publicly financed political system has been widely accepted as appropriate for Canada is it promotes our democracy.

One part of the bill suggests that we need to make it a little easier for certain people, whether they be women, minorities, people of a certain culture or religion, to participate.

I am not sure whether tinkering around with the amount of money that someone can spend on a nomination campaign will really matter to whether someone has an opportunity to become a nominated candidate. Let me share the way I think it goes, in terms of if someone wants to be a member of Parliament.

I think an analysis of this place would find that about 80% of the people have very impressive community service records. Over a long period of time they have made significant contributions to their communities, whether it be through a charitable organization, coaching ball or hockey, or being on hospital boards. I was on the board of a shelter for battered women and a rent geared to income housing organization. I spent nine years on a hospital board and coached hockey and ball as well.

In time I got around to realizing that what I really liked to do was to be with people and talk to people. I liked to help them with their problems and I enjoyed the satisfaction of getting things done. For those reasons, people got to know who I was.

When the time came and the opportunity was right, I put my name forward. I was involved with the Liberal Party. It was my party of choice based on my knowledge of the history and the background of the Liberal Party. I became a nominated candidate for the Liberal Party because I was able to go to the people whom I had served in my community and say, “I would like to do this. I need your help. Will you join the party? Will you support me in becoming your candidate in the next election?”

People do not get elected because they have money any more. I think they get elected for what they have done, not for what they promise to do.

The bill goes a long way in raising the importance of re-instilling some respect and some honour for our profession. This is a very honourable profession and I know members value it very much. Part of the process is to deal with the perception that there is undue influence of large contributors and that the rules are not quite right, to ensure that no one would somehow conclude that money was controlling the destiny of legislation in Canada.

The bill is an important instrument for us to deal with. There are many technical aspects to it. I think we can get it right. However, the macro objective is to correct the appearance of government as it will help to improve the democracy of Canada.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, political financing.

The purpose of Bill C-24 is: (a) to restrict the amount of contributions allowed to political parties, riding associations and candidates, including candidates for nomination for party leadership; (b) to compensate the political parties for the anticipated loss in revenue from large corporate and union donations by way of direct public financing; and (c) to 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.

The bill is yet another instance of the Liberals realizing their past mistakes, taking a good idea and turning it into a bad law. A candidate with money has a campaign, whereas without money has a cause.

It may be true that money is the mother's milk of politics but I believe political fundraising has contributed to the growing cynicism about public life.

Right or wrong, Canadians believe that money buys influence, and we cannot blame them. A recent study revealed that of the top 25 federal government contractors, 17 are major donors to the federal Liberal Party. Moreover these companies donate to the Liberal Party, versus all other parties, at a ratio of 6:1. At the candidate level the ratio is 30:1.

Major donors are not at all representative of the Canadian economy. Rather almost uniformly they tend to be government contractors, regulated industries and companies seeking changes from the government.

When I was the official opposition's critic for CIDA in 2000, I found out that Tecsult, a Quebec firm which had been getting repeat contracts from CIDA, was awarded contracts since 1993 worth $134 million and the same conglomerate gave to the Liberal Party and its candidates donations worth $137,000 since 1995. Since we first raised this matter in 1997, Tecsult and its affiliates were called Geratec. That firm was dissolved shortly thereafter but CIDA kept paying out millions of taxpayer dollars to the same principals.

Why was the CIDA minister allowed to siphon off taxpayer funds to these firms in exchange for Liberal donations? There are many examples like this.

The Prime Minister is determined to pass Bill C-24 even having gone so far as to threaten an election over the bill. Why after 10 years as the head of the government has he finally become so passionate over campaign finance reform? That is the big question. It seems it took the Prime Minister until he was just about to leave the tunnel to finally see the light at the end of it. Maybe the Prime Minister wants to take care of his good political friend, the former finance minister, whose mind he can read and whom he is so obviously determined to assist in any way possible.

The Prime Minister's sudden conversion probably has everything to do with cleaning up the image of the government which has been for so long plagued with scandal after scandal, corruption, cronyism with every suggestion that it has been helping Liberal friends. The Prime Minister should be restoring transparency and accountability to the political process. This bill is too little too late.

My major objection to Bill C-24 is that it removes the incentive to go out to ordinary Canadians and raise money from individual donors. In fact discourages and thus limits individual participation in the political process.

Rather than being dependent upon donations, parties and politicians will become dependent upon the public treasury. That seems like a very Liberal idea.

The public should contribute to parties voluntarily, not by law. The government acknowledges that under this legislation political parties and candidates would be 90% on the public take, up from 60% today.

The bill would double the amount that can be claimed against the full 75% tax credit for political contributions, versus the 16% credit for contributions to other deserving causes such as curing cancer, from $200 to $400. For example, if the party received a $400 donation, the contributor would only pay $100. The tax man would pay the remaining $300. This measure could add approximately $15 million in taxpayer subsidies to the parties in a non-election year and approximately $40 million in an election year.

That is not all. Under the legislation a party would be reimbursed 50% of its election expenses, up from 22% under the current law. This change means that, using the same previously mentioned $400 contribution, when spent, the party would receive another $200 from the taxpayer. Of the original $400 in sum, the taxpayer would be on the hook for $500. For larger donations the credit would be proportionately smaller. It gets even worse.

Under the proposed legislation, political parties would be permitted an annual allowance based upon the number of votes received in the previous election provided the party received either 2% of the votes cast nationally or 5% of the votes in the riding where it ran candidates. For every vote received, a party would get $1.50 per year. Even those who agree with public financing, which I do not, should find $1.50 per vote excessive.

Let us use the results of the last federal election as a benchmark, but it should be kept in mind that election witnessed the lowest voter turnout in recent history so the numbers could easily be higher in future elections. This would have amounted to a public subsidy of more than $20 million to the parties each year.

First the Liberals pass a law against so-called third party advertising forbidding Canadians to spend their own money on a cause they believe in. Now they are forcing the same Canadians to spend their money on a cause they may not believe in.

The Canadian Alliance believes that political parties should be more dependent upon financial support from grassroots members of political parties. People will give money to a party that provides them with a voice and an opportunity to bring about real change in the way the country is governed. That is why we have had such success in attracting individual donations. In 2001 the Canadian Alliance had 49,000 different contributors whereas the Liberals had only 6,500.

This would also put independent candidates and the small and new fringe parties at a disadvantage. They would not have an equal and fair chance during an election. The governing party, the largest party in the House, would continue to enjoy an advantage in the cycle for a long time to come.

The government has long believed it can spend Canadians' money more wisely than Canadians themselves can. That attitude needs to change. Canadians can decide for themselves to whom they want to give their money. They do not need the government to decide for them.

There are many other weaknesses I could point out. Recently it has come to my attention that some members have accumulated large trust funds containing hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is not fair. The provision is impossible to meaningfully enforce so that there could be some accountability.

I will oppose the bill as it increases taxpayer funded subsidies to political parties. I can support in principle limitations on corporate, union and individual donations. I rigorously condemn the enhanced public funding of political parties, especially where it is unrelated to actual financial contributions from a party's supporters.

We are prepared to accept the current reimbursement formula for candidates and parties for direct election expenses. We will seek amendments in committee to tighten up an attempt to prevent indirect contributions through trust funds to make the provisions of the bill fairer to smaller parties and non-incumbents and to limit taxpayer contributions to parties they do not support.

Therefore I will oppose the bill.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak to Bill C-24.

This is really a very bold initiative, comparable to René Lévesque's when he was Premier of Quebec in 1977, in terms of cultural changes to political party financing.

The reason I find it to be such a bold reform, which basically deserves substantial support, is that, politically, it makes it possible to achieve, at the federal level, an uheard of degree of transparency, in terms of the financing of federal political parties.

We in Quebec are used to that, to seeing such principles spread across the country. I find it to be an extremely encouraging and promising approach to politics, one which bodes well in terms of exercising democracy.

This bill provides for limits on the amount of contributions by individuals and corporations. Individuals may contribute up to $10,000. Corporations may contribute up to $1,000, but only in electoral districts, that is to say to electoral district associations as opposed to directly to political parties.

This bill imposes spending limits on nomination campaigns. Hon. members know as I do that two or three of us who are aspiring to become candidates, for the Liberal Party for example, in a given riding, are put to the test of a vote by members. To that end, we campaign to be designated official candidates for that riding.

For the first time, statutory limits will be imposed; I say statutory because some limits are imposed in an ad hoc fashion.

This bill provides for the public financing of political activities. This is not new in itself, since there is already a public contribution, through tax credits and the partial refund of election expenses. We know that there is already a public contribution to political activity.

Now, an amount will be paid for each vote obtained by the party in the previous election, to ensure full transparency of political party financing.

When we talk about democracy, I think that we must not forget that the best exercise in democracy is for the public to take control of political activity.

How can this be accomplished? First, when a political party or a riding association is required not only to provide audited books showing income and expenditures, but also to indicate the source of all income and the allocation of expenditures, and to make these figures public, I think that enormous progress has been achieved in terms of transparency.

This bill is fundamental and, as I said earlier, it will change Canada's political culture.

It is not perfect. I believe that there are numerous questions that need to be answered. For example, the bill is supposed to come into force on the later of January 1, 2004, and the day that is six months after the day it is assented to.

We know that federal electoral boundaries are being readjusted. The process has begun. The new map of electoral boundaries will come into force only for elections after June 2004.

In other words, if Bill C-24, now before us, was effective as of January 1, 2004, with certain ridings having to file reports after six months, everything would have to be changed again to take into consideration the new ridings.

Why do things twice? Maybe there is a way to improve things in this respect. I am using the electoral map as one example, but there are others.

For example, in the Liberal Party there are provincial wings and a federal wing. There are also provinces where some of the rules of the Liberal Party of Canada and the provincial Liberal Party are the same and some are not. It is essential to take the time to sort this out as efficiently as possible.

We are talking about ceilings. As far as I am concerned, and I have said it before, the notion of capping financial contributions from business, like contributions from individuals, is fundamental to this bill. If the ceiling is $1,000 and it is spent in one single riding, will this not be an advantage for urban ridings, since that is where businesses have their head office, compared to rural ridings where there are fewer head offices? I think that it is worth sorting out this problem in a manner consistent with the substance of the bill, on which we all agree.

What happens when there is a nomination and an electoral campaign in the same year? The same company could not contribute twice; it is limited to a contribution of $1,000 a year. Perhaps there is a way to arrange it so that a nomination contestant keeps this $1,000, so that the candidate who actually runs for the party in the election that follows no longer has access to it.

There are all sorts of problems of this nature that—I repeat—are not fundamental problems, but enforcement problems. Some political parties, as I said earlier, have provincial wings. If the financing base for the ridings of these provincial wings is reduced, and if refunds go to the wing or at least party headquarters, how will these provincial wings be able to finance themselves when they do not have the right to receive funds from companies directly? There are many problems of this kind that we must address.

Nevertheless, I really do not want us to lose sight of the fact that this bill is absolutely essential. All of us here know the procedure. I would like to remind the House that a bill exists once it has been introduced; this is called first reading. Then there is a debate—during which I am speaking today—which is second reading. This is concluded by a vote in this House. The purpose of this vote is to determine if there is support for the principle of the bill.

I will vote without hesitation for the principle of this bill. Then, in the normal flow of things, the bill will be sent to committee, to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in this case, for detailed consideration. That is when the issues and concerns I have raised are looked at in detail, not only to make this bill excellent, but so that it can be enforced in a consistent, harmonious and effective manner.

I look forward to the day when, with these well-thought out, well-worked, well-researched changes—and in fact with the hope that all the political parties will support them—we will be able to give Canada, thanks to this initiative taken by our leader and Prime Minister, new legislation and new provisions that will govern the transparency of political parties and their operations in Canada. I will be extremely proud to have a final vote on this.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-24 regarding political financing. I would first like to correct, as it were, the comments made by the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla, former leader of the Canadian Alliance, former leader of the Reform Party, at the end of his speech, when he suggested, in response to the remarks by the former Minister of Finance, that it would be wrong and probably shameful for Canadian democracy to finance the Bloc Quebecois, a party which promotes Quebec sovereignty, as you know.

This may seem annoying, but such is the price of democracy. These people should understand that. If Canadian democracy is held up as such a wonderful model, then we should be only too glad to take it to its full and logical conclusion.

We could make the same complaints in Quebec, as sovereignists. We know that the legislation in Quebec, which I am going to talk to you about shortly, allows for opposition parties in Quebec to receive funding, just as does the Parti Quebecois.

However, these parties, both the Liberal Party of Quebec and the Action démocratique du Québec want to consign the people of Quebec to the provincial category once and for all; they want to “provincialize” Quebec forever.

We, as sovereignists, tolerate that. We allow these people to receive public financing. They want to place limits on Quebec. And we allow them to receive this funding. The complaints of the former Minister of Finance, like those of the former leader of the Alliance, are either entirely founded—and allow us to make the same complaint to the Liberal Party of Quebec and the Action démocratique—or completely ridiculous.

I am going with the latter. These remarks, especially when they pop so spontaneously out of the mouth of the former Minister of Finance, can be described as simplistic, not to say crude, in the context of democracy.

I am now getting to the main thrust of my remarks. It is with great pride and even emotion that I welcome this opportunity this morning to speak on the federal bill on more appropriate and sounder political party financing. We know that, thanks to René Lévesque and thanks to the Parti Quebecois, Quebec is one step ahead, one very long step ahead, not only of Canada but also of all political parties in the western world or almost all, with the possible exception of a few I may not know about.

This is very advanced legislation providing that only—and this is the fundamental intent of the law—voters, those individuals who have the right to vote, may make contributions to political parties—this is a major aspect—subject to an annual limit of $3,000 per voter.

In practical terms, this means that, through this kind of sound financing, a Quebec government of any stripe belongs to everyone and no one. The latest study shows that, out of four or five million voters, 58,000 made contributions, and 82% of these contributions were under $200.

This shows how democratic this financing is and how the Government of Quebec, regardless of who is in office, belongs to everyone and no one. And the Parti Quebecois in particular, which was behind this bill and introduced it, is reflected in it.

All this to say that, as everyone knows, Quebec society is therefore a very advanced society which can truly be an inspiration to other governments, and that is what has happened with the Government of Canada. It took some time. As we know, distance can make communications difficult, and Ottawa is far away from Quebec City. There are bureaucrats and technocrats everywhere. There may also be preconceived ideas to the effect that anything coming from Quebec is as good.

At any rate, they woke up. Before moving on, the Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice saw fit, and this was wise of him, to introduce this bill which, if enforced properly, will bring about—this is something we must realize—a complete overhaul of electoral procedures in this country.

We know that historically it is the oil and gas companies, the banks, the timber companies, the arms producers, the pulp and paper companies, the steel producers who had the government's ear and privileged access to influencing this government's policies, thanks to the secret campaign fund that existed in this country. All you had to do was to call the right person, at the right time, and say that the bill under consideration was not well regarded by such and such an industry and that it would be appreciated if the government could remedy the situation.

It was understood that things worked this way, and things will continue to work this way until the bill passes. Furthermore, the Minister of Canadian Heritage made a somewhat naive admission when she recently said that, in fact, she had witnessed government policies or bills being amended in some cases in response to pressure from people who had made large contributions to the party. They could not afford to ignore it during a given debate or when a certain political will became apparent. It was essential to listen to the wishes and concerns of these people who had been so generous over the past few months or years.

Not only is Canada involved, so is the U.S.A., and we all know how much influence they have on us. According to my knowledge of the situation, and to what I have heard from others, the situation is worse in the United States. A person cannot be a candidate unless he or she is a millionaire to begin with, and also has the support of a specific industry, be it oil, sugar, forestry, lumber, highway construction or whatever. Anyone wanting to get into politics as a senator or member of the House of Representatives in the United States needs to have backing. That is the way things are now in that country. A person needs a whole lot of money to get into politics, to run for office successfully in the United States.

It is not just a matter of money, but also of the way it affects democracy. This is a totally negative situation. The more private sector financing there is, and the more hidden that financing is, the more negative the effect on democracy. There is no such thing as a free lunch, as they say. The greater the effect on democracy, the more the government serves private interests rather than collective ones. That is what we have tried to avoid in Quebec. I believe we have been more successful than other governments that are rather close to us geographically.

If he wants to use Quebec as a model, then the Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice should have gone further, and based the bill on Quebec's referendum legislation. He should have announced that he was going to abide by the spirit of that legislation, even if he does not have such legislation himself.

There is the issue of the financing of political parties, but there are also public consultations. There are elections, but there are also public consultations, in Quebec in particular.

In Quebec, there is legislation that covers such consultations. There is the referendum bill, which, as we know, was completely ignored and flouted by the rest of Canada. In the dying days of the 1995 referendum campaign, Quebeckers were treated to a love-in, and told how much Canadians wanted them to stay. We know that the federal government spent money freely then. It gave its employees the day off. It helped the cause, even if it was in violation of the spirit of Quebec's legislation. The law was ignored, was flouted. Companies such as Air Canada, Via Rail and others contributed what they could. The same thing for private sector companies, which, in some cases, sent out threatening letters to employees, to vote no under the threat of reprimands. They all should have abided by the spirit of Quebec's forward-thinking legislation.

A major asset that we have in Quebec in terms of democracy is the way returning officers are appointed. Again, in Canada, we are behind the times. The Liberal Party of Canada has been in power for 69 years over the last century. It is very tentacular. If you are not a Liberal, a former riding association president, a former defeated candidate, and so on, you have no chance of being appointed a returning officer. In Quebec, this is done through the most calculated and scientific competition possible. People are appointed based on their qualifications. Canada should also adopt this practice.

Canada would benefit and this would meet the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada to depoliticize the system. It would allow him to fire anyone who does not do a good job on election day. Since he did not appoint them, he cannot fire them, at present. This too is very serious for democracy and taints the electoral process.

Our complaints are rather legitimate and I have already said as much to the Chief Electoral Officer here, in Ottawa. There is a negative bias; there is an adversary among us, before us. I hope Canada will learn from this.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

I must point out here that the applause from the Bloc Quebecois is because they know what an excellent financing bill there is in Quebec.

Various countries such as the United States and France are also imposing ceilings on political contributions. Bill C-24, which would limit contributions, follows up on the commitment to ensure clear and full reporting of contributions and expenses.

Canadians have the right to be informed and to have access to this information, just as Canadians and Quebeckers are learning today how members of this House have been spending public moneys for their office and on travel to the House of Commons and around Canada and Quebec for many years.

The government must show leadership in order to restore the foundations of our democratic government. The government intends to exercise this leadership.

As legislators, we have an interest in tackling this issue head on, not only for the good of our government, but also for the good of future governments, no matter what their political stripe.

Many people have said that the Prime Minister has taken up where René Lévesque left off; that is true. For the first time, Ottawa is limiting donations to political parties. Big business no longer has the right to give a dime to political parties, and contributions from individuals will be capped. Ottawa has finally decided to follow the lead of Quebec and Manitoba in developing a framework for financing the electoral process.

Individuals will have to limit their donations to $10,000 per year. Business and unions are almost totally cut out of the system. They will be entitled to make contributions of only $1,000 per year and only to individual canditates or riding associations. They can no longer make direct contributions to a political party. The $1,000 limit will apply to all subsidiaries of a company or locals of a union.

The idea is to discourage big business from financing elections, while allowing small local merchants, corner stores or your brother-in-law's drycleaning business to encourage their member of Parliament.

The Prime Minister and the government House leader clearly explained it. The minister responsible stated:

It is a small amount for big business. Say I represent Imperial Lord and there are 301 candidates in Canada. What difference would it make if I send $12 to each of them? It is a small amount, but at the same time it allows the corner store owner, who is incorporated, to buy two tickets to the member's annual dinner.

For those of you who are using the increasingly frequent examples of people circumventing the Quebec law to prove that such limits do not work, Ottawa's answer to you is that it has perfected René Lévesque's model.

We looked at what happened in Quebec in 1977. The limit was $3,000. In real dollars, that represents about $10,000. Some say this is a mistake, but in the end, it is not because if we consider indexation, it represents about $10,000 today.

The bill contains measures to discourage circumventing the law. The penalty will be a fine of up to $5,000 or five years in prison. This seems steep when we know that the average donation was $591 in 2001 for both corporate and individual donations.

There is also increased transparency. The bill seeks to plug the infamous black hole so often denounced by the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley.

The limits will also apply to nominations and party leadership races. Riding associations, until now exempt from having to report their sources of revenue outside of election campaigns, will now be required to report all of this information.

I agree with this. In our riding association, there will have to be yearly reports to the Chief Electoral Officer as to how money from contributions is spent.

In these three cases, yearly reporting is required to the Chief Electoral Officer. All of the money that goes directly or indirectly towards elections will be accounted for publicly.

Our most important principle is complete disclosure. The bill puts an end to black holes and money given under the table. The government leader in the House referred to this. He gave an example of a numbered company, ABC1234 Inc. making an election contribution. “How is that transparent?”, he asked, in reference to contributions from numbered companies.

To offset these limits, the state will increase its funding for political parties. Public financing currently costs Canadians $39 million. That figure will increase by $23 million per year, and by $40 million during election years.

Candidates will need to receive 10% of the votes, instead of 15%, in order to qualify for a refund of half of their election spending. As well, political parties will receive a 50% reimbursement on their election spending, compared to the current 22.5%. This is a complete overhaul at the federal level.

If a political party receives over 2% of valid votes cast, it will receive $1.50 for each vote obtained every year after the next federal election.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

On the surface, it is a bill that professes to end influence peddling in Canada and I could support it, as could any member in the House. However, the fact of the matter is that this is not what the bill is about. The bill has some serious deficits of which the Canadian public should be well aware because it is their money that will be used to fund us as political parties, instead of in other ways.

The first aspect of the bill deals with corporate and individual donations to parties and candidates. The bill limits funding to political parties by corporations to $1,000 a year and by individuals to $10,000 a year. I do not have any problem with that at all. In fact, putting limits on individual and corporate donations is a good thing. But where does influence peddling take place? It takes place underneath the table. The big chunks of money that we find from organizations like Groupaction and others come in under the table and amount to the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars that are given to political parties in Canada today. Therein lies the challenge.

Producing transparency in the manner in which individual corporations are able to provide moneys to political parties will remove the ability to have influence peddling. I would suggest that what the government could do is adopt what the European Union has done, and that is the “publish what you pay principle”. Not only would I say publish what you pay, I would say “publish what is received”. If we could do both of them, influence peddling would be severely limited in Canada. That is a good way to end it.

To register constituency associations and to put more transparencies in place are good parts of the bill, but where I have serious problems is in using public moneys to fund political parties, and really, if this part of the bill were removed I would stand up and support the government on its bill.

In our system today, after an election parties are refunded from the public coffers 22.5% of the amount of money that they have actually spent. In the bill the government proposes to increase that to 50%.

Second, the government also proposes to increase the tax credit from 50% to 75% of donations. When individual organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation and so many others are starving for money and indeed when there is more reliance placed on them to raise their own funds, would it not be right for the government to increase the amount of money that it allows individual charitable organizations, regardless of what they happen to be, so that they would have the same charitable deduction as political parties? Why not do that? That would be a very good and progressive move on the part of the government: to make individual charitable deductions the same whether one donates to a political party or to a charitable organization.

The other aspect that we take umbrage at is the annual allowance. What I think the Canadian public will find very interesting is that in the bill the government proposes to allow the taxpayer to give political parties $1.50 for every vote they have received in the last election, for every single year. Let us look at the facts in the last election. For the Liberal Party, that would mean $8 million every year. My party would receive $4.9 million and the Bloc Québécois $2 million per year of taxpayers' money. In total, almost $19.3 million of the taxpayers' money would be going to us as political parties every single year.

These days when there is so much competition for moneys for health care, defence and a whole host of issues that help the people of our country, surely the government would take it upon itself to say we should not be funding Canadian political parties with taxpayers' money. A better use of the people's money is to put it into health care so people can get their health care when they need it, or to put it into social programs for the poor and underprivileged when they need it, or into housing or aboriginal affairs, or a host of issues that affect the poorest of the poor, because $19.3 million of the taxpayers' money is nothing to sneeze at.

I would support the bill if the government removed the public financing of political parties and took it upon itself to be innovative. I would ask the Minister of National Revenue to please give charitable organizations the same tax write-off as would be given to political parties. It is the right thing to do.

On the issue of a vibrant democracy, it is sad to say that a justifiably cynical public is moving away from political structures and into alternative structures to try to get what they want. That has happened because there has been a defanging of the country's political institutions.

MPs cannot represent the public who sent them here in the manner in which they should be. We need the power to represent our constituents and to do what they want. It is sad that in 2003 that is not the case and as time passes, it is becoming worse. Politics has become a cynical game fuelled by the taxpayers' dollar. The problems of the nation are merely the backdrop upon which the game is played for the maintenance or acquisition of power. That has to change.

Whoever sits in the prime minister's seat and chooses to do this, chooses to democratize Canada, chooses to democratize this House, will have a legacy that will live far beyond that person's years. Whichever leader chooses to do that will have put something in the history books that he or she can be proud of and that will serve the Canadian people very well for years to come.

There are things such as empowering MPs and changing private members' business. The rules are crafted by this House, by your office, Mr. Speaker, to go into the standing orders. In the waning days of December before the winter break, the government chose to renege on its promise. It chose to end the hard work of changing private members' business, that small island of opportunity where MPs can innovate. It chose to kill it and it has gone back to the dark days of private members' business being a farce. That has to change.

With respect to committees, the public and others who have been involved in committees must sigh and shake their heads at how disappointing the experience has been. Committees could be a vibrant place where members from all parties could put forth their individual expertise to deal with issues and offer solutions to help the government to better our country.

Committees are basically a make work project for MPs. We study issues. We often study the studies and then we go back and study them again. Legislation is reviewed which is a good thing.

However, there is a dominance of the party in power. The parliamentary secretaries sit on the committees. The government controls the committees with an iron fist. The original intent of committees as a place where MPs could actually have a vibrant discourse with each other and come up with something good, productive and effective is absent.

Many committees do good work. Even when that good work is done, the committees put together documents that get a day of interest in the media and then they are tossed on a shelf to collect dust. I am sure that somewhere in Ottawa there is a large warehouse where those studies are collecting dust.

We do not need more studies. We need action. We are not lacking in solutions. We are lacking in the political will to implement solutions. We need to deal with issues. We need to put people to work, to shorten waiting lists, to give people health care when they need it, to clean our environment, to help aboriginal people, the most dispossessed people in our country. That is what we need to do. We do not need to root around for more solutions.

There are numerous people outside and inside the House with umpteen constructive solutions that only need to be applied. The government does not need to apply them on a national scale. If the ministers applied them as pilot projects, imagine what we would see. We would see success and sometimes we would see failure, but surely where there was success we could share it with people from coast to coast and adopt that for the betterment of all Canadians.

I close by saying that the government has a grand opportunity to reform our system to make it more transparent and to democratize the House for the betterment of all Canadians.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is another interesting debate today. It is a bit of a change of pace. Everybody came rushing back to this place this morning all intent on a closure motion that was to have been brought down on Bill C-10, the bill coming back from the Senate on firearms and cruelty to animals.

The government threw us a curve and pulled that one off because it was having trouble lining up the backbenchers on that side, not just the opposition but its own backbenchers, who were saying that they would not support that. It is a bit of an unprecedented thing when we see a closure motion rescinded. It was a bittersweet victory that brought us to Bill C-24 today, the election financing bill.

I watched with some interest as the government House leader threw the curveball, the knuckleball, the Nerfball, the spitball, or whatever it was today, that got us over to this bill. Then he stood up and did a tirade, reminiscent of the old rat pack, of how it was everybody's fault but his. The last time I checked he is the leader of the government that has a majority. He controls the agenda totally and completely. It is at his beck and call, and the cabinet that he serves.

How in any way could it possibly be the opposition shanghaiing this place or withholding this or doing that? How could that possibly be? Yet he stood there sanctimonious as anyone could believe, as hypocritical as anyone could believe--and I see you chuckling, Mr. Speaker. You saw the same act I did.

It would have been a great act to have at a circus. He would have had people coming in and paying money to see that. Without a tear in his eye he was able to do that; without a smile on his face. I guess that is a great attribute that he has after all these years in this place. But it is certainly nothing to do with the opposition.

This particular bill, whether it gets shanghaied or not, has more to do with what backbench members do or not do over on that side and the leadership contests, and problems that they have at this time.

Having said that, I look at the bill and think, here we go again. Regarding the last number of bills that I have spoken to in this place, the direction might be right but the focus is off, this might be right but this is missing, and there are all these loopholes. I see that again in Bill C-24. I see the public disengaged. There is a huge disconnect now between what government says and does in this place, and what the taxpayers who are paying the bills and for whom we are doing this are actually asking for.

We are asking taxpayers to totally fund the political system in this country. They do to a great extent now, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40% to 50% with tax rebates and different things that go on. However, we are looking to take that to an unprecedented level with this bill. If taxpayers had a disconnected appetite for politics before, they certainly will have a larger disconnect once they start to analyze what the bill is all about.

This is all about public money, taxpayers' money, paying for the political habits of parties. We are seeing things in the bill that are not covered under allowable expenses at this point. I wish to mention one thing that is inappropriate.

Candidates who ran in an election, and I will use my riding as an example from the 2000 election, who received 15% of the popular vote received their deposit back. It was basically called that. A candidate received half of the allowable expenses as a rebate from the taxpayers. We have all been through that, Mr. Speaker, and you have too. However I see the threshold being lowered to 10%. I think it should go the other way; it should go to 20%. We are talking about public money here. Someone who cannot get 20% of the popular vote in a riding is missing out.

I know the House leader made a comment that none of the Liberals missed by more than 10% so it would not affect them at all. However, in reality, the Liberal candidate got 17% in my riding because 3% belonged to the aboriginal vote. There were aboriginal folks with whom I had become very friendly with who phoned me and said that there was a problem. The polling booths had my picture up with a big X through it along with signs saying “Don't vote Canadian Alliance” and all these wonderful things, which are not allowed but it was done. That is what gave the Liberal candidate the 3% to get above the 15%. It is a dirty way to get it. He will need that money a lot more than I will next time around if he decides to run again because he is fighting an uphill battle with gun control and all sorts of different things that have helped us out in that part of the country.

However, the bill does not in any way address the fundamental problem with political contributions.

There is an unappetizing flavour in the electorate that we are corrupt. We saw that through the HRD scandals, and the advertising and sponsorship fiasco that is still under investigation. There is hardly a file that public works has touched in the last two or three years that is not before the RCMP or that the Auditor General will not have a look at. Everything is suspect. The bill does not address any of that.

We saw polls at the height of the fiasco last spring that two-thirds of Canadians thought that government was corrupt. They labelled us all together and that was unfortunate. We are all here doing a job at, of course, different levels of our capability, but we are still doing a job on behalf of our constituents. We answer to them, not to the public purse, but to our constituents. I do not see the bill addressing that type of fine tuning.

It is all about corruption and kickbacks that we saw throughout the whole sponsorship fiasco. The bill in no way would stop that. It may stop the numbers at times, but it would not limit it and it would not halt it in any way.

We have a majority government that is having a real problem with a corruption label, and an unethical conduct label for some of the frontbench folks. They have the discretionary money and hundreds of millions of dollars that they can put into their pet projects and say that is what government will do because that is what people want, and so on, because it has done some polling. Even the polling would be covered under the bill. We saw the polling cut out of sponsorships and rightly so, and here it is put back into the bill.

We have a backdoor deal going on to put that polling cost into the bill because it is a significant factor. There is no doubt about it. Good polling costs good money. It is being slipped back in at public expense because the government can no longer do it under the sponsorship file because people are looking over its shoulder. There is a bit of sleight of hand which is part of that circus act that the government House leader was doing before.

I cannot see anything but more apathy and low voter turnouts continuing because people are feeling disconnected and asking, how relevant is this place?

There are many days when I have that same concern. I sat in on a committee meeting this morning and I wondered what the heck we were doing. It is just busy work. We get a few people in behind closed doors and let them listen to this, that or whatever. We are not here to be entertained. We are here to do a decent job and I do not need that busy work. I have constituents that I need to call and work on their files because they are having a tough time with Revenue Canada, the GST, or things like that. I do not need that busy work.

There is a member screaming over there to let legislation go through the House. I say to that member to bring forward something worth voting on and we will do it. The Liberals have a majority. They ram legislation through using closure. This is not legislation; this is ripping off the public. It is all about money. It is all about cashflow for political parties. That is what it is all about: $1.50 per vote. I would do very well because I get lots of votes.

It is all about paying off party debt, bringing it forward, and letting the public pay for it. I do not think Canadians want to do that. They are very critical of bills like that.

There are things that are roadblocks to good legislation coming through the House, but not very often are they caused by the opposition parties. A lot of it is the result of the government not being able to get its own house in order. It has very little to do with us. There are so few tools that we have at our discretion to slow things down from the runway that happens here all the time.

The Senate is not sitting right now. The member says it is because we are halting legislation. We did not pull Bill C-13. The government House leader did. We did not pull Bill C-10 today. The government House leader did. Bill C-20, the child protection bill, has been shanghaied for a little while.

We have seen a long term calendar that might go a week into the future and it is subject to change. Let us see some good legislation that we can put through. Let us see a schedule that the government sticks to. Let us see some dates that are locked down so we know what we are working toward, and we can get in here and speak to that legislation.

We spend so much time, two steps ahead and three steps back, and then we get legislation like this that is so full of holes that Canadians do not understand it. They are concerned about big business and unions taking over the political parties. Good and rightly so, but this bill does not address that in any way at all. It would limit the numbers, but it would change them around and would put them in from a different way.

It is more smoke and mirrors. It is legislation that I certainly cannot support and I know my folks at home would expect me to stand up and say this is not good.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying what an honour it is for me to take part in this debate on Bill C-24. This is a bill that has been long awaited, at least within my association and my riding.

Moreover, my association had drafted a resolution calling for a ban to be placed on financial contributions to political parties by companies and corporations rather than individuals.

That resolution was debated during last November's biennial convention of the Liberal Party of Canada by the Quebec wing. Unfortunately, an amendment was proposed, and won out, to instead propose a limit on contributions from corporations, labour unions and associations, rather than the out and out prohibition sought by my association.

I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that once the bill was introduced and I had an opportunity to examine it, I was pleased with what I saw. I shall explain.

I have already been involved with a code of ethics for law enforcement. My close to 10 years of experience has led me to the conclusion that the best protection for any institution within a democracy is a system based on a number of principles, among them accountability, transparency, good governance or effective control, and independence.

Transparency is included in the legislation, as was mentioned earlier by one of my colleagues from Winnipeg. This legislation calls for clear accounting on the part of riding associations, provincial wings of federal parties, and federal parties themselves at the national level, in terms not only of the donations that are received, but also in terms of the actual disbursements that are made by these various entities.

This legislation calls for transparency and accountability in the area of nomination and leadership contests. That is quite a good thing. It would go a long ways to restoring some of the confidence that ordinary Canadians have in their politicians and in our democratic parliamentary system here. Why do I say that? I will give the House a few facts.

Voter turnout dropped to below 55% of eligible voters during the last election. Many people attribute this voter apathy, in part at least, to the widespread idea that politicians are subject to undue influence from those who give them money.

Some parliamentarians would say that the contributions they receive are philanthropic in nature, and that the money comes without conditions. Others would say that it is impossible to prove that politicians are influenced by the money they receive.

However, there is cause to wonder, like many citizens do, why corporations, non-profit organizations or unions would contribute to a political party or candidate if they do not expect anything in return.

Is what they expect necessarily in the interest of Canadians? It is cynicism, pure and simple. I do not believe that elected officials are corrupt. I belive that the vast majority of elected officials, at every level, whether it be municipal, provincial or federal, are honest and act with integrity.

However, this is not what Canadians seem to think. According to polls, the vast majority believe that they are unduly influenced by corporations, companies, unions and non-profit associations. Whether this is true or not, that is the perception.

When I was the assistant commissioner for police ethics for the province of Quebec, I learned one thing. Public perceptions, particularly when they are false, need to be disproved by the state.

Take the example of police. We know that the vast majority of police officers are honest and go their jobs properly. They are polite, they do not abuse authority, power or use excessive force. However, in some communities, in some provinces and cities, there is a perception that the police are corrupt, abusive and so on.

In every Canadian province, the federal government has implemented monitoring, governance and accountability systems for police forces. It goes without saying that the same should be done for elected political representatives.

There are other facts to consider. In a 2001 poll conducted by the Canadian Democracy and Corporate Accountability Commission, 56% of respondents were in favour of barring business or union contributions to political parties; 33% were against prohibiting business contributions; 35% were against barring union contributions.

I think that this speaks loud and clear. In fact, certain business leaders had already expressed some reservations about the current laissez-faire attitude, which leaves too many doubts about political contributions by corporations, business and unions.

The current system also has the inconvenience, it must be said, of putting businesses in a difficult position, in that some people expect that companies will be good citizens and make donations to charities and to political parties, while others consider these same acts a shameful attempt to manipulate the political process.

Some companies have decided to give up making political contributions. I think that BP, Alcan and Rio Tinto are among them.

Moreover, some people fear that companies will get around the rules and illegally write off political contributions by claiming them as expenses. I will not comment on this.

However, I do want to comment on two things in this bill. There is accountability and transparence, effective government and independence. I think that the Chief Electoral Officer is independent and he has a good track record.

As for the penalities for people or companies that want to get around the provisions of this legislation with regard to contribution methods and ceilings, I believe the penalities are too low.

A maximum penalty of $2,000 or six months in prison is truly too low for any attempt to subvert our Parliament and our democracy. I feel these penalties should be reviewed by the government and should be much stricter.

I would simply like to thank the Prime Minister and the governing Liberal Party for this bill. It is a big step in the right direction.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24, recently introduced in this House and dealing with political party financing in particular.

From the outset, I must recognize that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, agree with the bill in principle. I will elaborate on this in my remarks, even if I have only 10 minutes. Ten minutes may seem like a long time to some, but it is a very short time for others.

I want to point out that the purpose of the bill is to clean up our political system. The idea is to do things the way they are done elsewhere. Naturally, Quebec was mentioned. In Quebec, legislation was passed 26 years ago. If memory serves, it was passed in 1977. But we must look at what was going on before then to understand that the purpose of the bill is truly to clean up politics. This bill has a number of flaws, and I will come back to that. Still, it is unfortunate that such a bill was so long in coming at the federal level.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too am happy for the opportunity to address Bill C-24. I think the bill is an opportunistic opportunity for the Prime Minister to take some of the heat off the ethical breakdown in government.

We have been literally hammered over the last couple of years with boondoggles, cost overruns, misuse of taxpayer money and all sorts of accusations regarding whether or not there was proper accountability and whether or not ministers properly fulfilled their duties.

The Prime Minister made a big speech saying that he would be making some changes, one of them being, of course, the proposed code of conduct for MPs. Even though none of these scandals involved backbench MPs on the Liberal side or opposition MPs, they have become part of the focus, moving away from the accountability of ministers, who the Prime Minister was quite happy to promote during the election of 1993 where he said that when he became Prime Minister those ministers would be held accountable. We frankly have not seen that.

In any event, now we have, as part of the package, electoral reform. We find that it is an interesting approach that the government is taking. It is interesting because of the fact that it has decided to change the way political parties and candidates are financed.

A couple of times in the debate today it has been mentioned that the Canadian Alliance would probably accept this money. I want to make it very clear that we are opposed to the bill because we believe that some of the measures in it are just plain wrong. However I want to make it very clear that we will obey and abide by the law that is passed.

The Prime Minister has announced that he will force the bill through by making it a confidence vote. In other words, if members of Parliament choose to vote against the bill it would show a lack of confidence in the government. The government's own members are being browbeaten into voting for this whether they agree with it or not. I think that is unconscionable. It is a breach in the democratic process.

At any rate, the Prime Minister has brought this forward and will jam it through and, with that, we will have some notable changes in the way that political parties and candidates are financed.

I would like to be on record as saying that some of the measures in the bill are laudable. I certainly agree with at least the word “accountability”. The Liberals tend to use the word a lot but they do not often produce the results that we are looking for. However I do believe in accountability and openness.There is nothing wrong with having true accountability.

However there is one thing that I have come to understand, one can refuse to be open and accountable in two ways: first, by giving no information; and second, by giving so much that it gets lost in the shuffle. I had that experience not too long ago when I asked for information. Several crates of documents were delivered to my office. All of that information can be called accountability. I looked at it and noticed that a lot of it was simply photocopies of photocopies of the same thing over and over again. It was just a way of trying to snow me. I received the stuff I asked for and I could no longer say I did not get it. However the usefulness of it was minimized because of the fact that the volume was so great. I think this is one of the features of the current rules.

We have rules about publicly disclosing the donations of people who give $200 or more to a party or to a candidate. Frankly, I think that is part of the overkill. I guess there is nothing wrong with knowing who donated to whom. Sometimes people join a party, not because they believe in that party, but because they want to become operatives in the party for spying reasons. I have heard of that happening. I suppose it does happen from time to time. Would it not be interesting if some of the labour unions knew to which parties their bosses belonged in order to get on the mailing list or other things like that?

I think it is redundant to ask for public disclosure of small donations. It is the larger ones that could be open to questioning because they could be used to influence the party at different times.

The philosophical question is how political parties should be financed. We all accept that there are political parties in this country and that hey should have enough money to operate. It is unfortunate that from time to time political parties go into debt. That ought not to be.

I remember with pride being part of the Reform Party in 1993 where one of our campaign slogans was that the party would run its election campaign the way Canada should be run, debt free. We did that for a number of years during several elections. I as an individual candidate did not spend money I did not have in order to avoid going into debt. I think that is a laudable goal. We need to make sure there is a solid base for the financing of political parties.

I strongly believe that it should be voluntary and not coerced. Frankly, if a member of the Liberal Party came to my door and asked if I would help the party raise money for the next election by buying some tickets to its fundraising dinner I would decline the offer. I do not believe the Liberal government is doing a good job of governing the country. I think it needs to be replaced. To ask me to finance its next election campaign would be an affront.

I know people will say that the bill would not take money away, except in proportion. If people vote for them that is how they get their money. It is based on the votes.

I understand that part but in my riding of Elk Island where, I would venture to say, two-thirds of the people would support the Canadian Alliance and about 20%, one in five, would support a Liberal--those are numbers based on the last election--it would be an affront to take all those taxpayer dollars out of my riding and say “That part of your tax dollars which goes to support political parties will be divvied up 50% to the Liberals and 20% to the Canadian Alliance”. Right away there is an anomaly when we bring in that kind of a scheme.

I think it is anti-democratic. I believe democracy is served when individuals are free, when they are given the freedom to support the organization or the political party of their choice, not because it is brought in.

I remember how upset I was, as a forced union member, to watch the union give $100,000 to the NDP. I am diametrically opposed to the principles of the New Democratic Party, as it probably is opposed to many of the things in which we believe. However to force me to pay my dues and then watch the money go to the New Democratic Party was a personal affront to me. It was a violation of my personal freedoms.

That same principle applies when we are taking taxation dollars and giving them to political parties. That will increase cynicism toward political parties and not decrease it.

In order to strengthen the amendment that we proposed, I would like to propose a subamendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended by inserting after the word “state” the words “, an increase from approximately 40% to over 70%,”

For explanation, there are also some commas included in there but I did not read the commas because they are symbols and not words.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to this important debate on Bill C-24. The bill is supposed to bring much needed reform to Canada's campaign financing legislation but I think the legislation has failed to achieve almost all of its intended goals. I will explain this in more detail, but I think most Canadians do not understand how most campaign financing is currently done in Canada.

The Liberals would like Canadians to think that this piece of legislation is the magic wand that will restore openness, accountability and honesty to the Canadian political process. It will not. Money for political parties generally comes from two sources: private individuals and organizations such as businesses, unions and advocacy groups.

Some parties rely mostly on union donations and others rely mostly on donations from large corporations. I am proud to say that the Canadian Alliance relies on small donations from individual Canadians.

I think it is something when the opposition is funded mostly by average Canadians and the governing party is not. The Canadian Alliance receives 61% of its funding from individuals and the Liberals receive just 19% of their funding from individuals.

It takes a great deal of effort for politicians and their parties to solicit moneys in small amounts from any person. It takes humility and genuine sincerity to go door to door. It takes pride in one's work to ask for a piece of someone's paycheque based on one's performance. It requires that we remain connected with those who vote for us.

It takes a lot for an individual to sit, write a cheque, buy a stamp and mail it to a political party. It is no wonder large corporate donations appeal to well connected politicians. There is no need to go to the voters. There is no need to listen to their concerns. There is no need to put them at the top of the political agenda as shortcuts to a ballot box.

While corporate donations have a place in the political process, all parties would do well to focus on individuals too. Nonetheless, I would prefer that corporations voluntarily donated to political parties rather than force taxpayers to fund political parties.

As one of the few women in the House, I would like to address one of the largest myths surrounding the proposed legislation. Those in favour of the legislation have said that the bill would make it easier for women to enter politics and the House of Commons. I do not believe this is the case, nor do I think it would attract the kind of candidate Canadians deserve. I can tell anyone, male or female, that political life is very challenging, even more so than I first imagined. It is not a place for those who are insecure, weak or timid. Candidates usually get elected on their merits alone. That is what makes our democracy strong.

We have shown in the past that those who have wanted to get here and have been qualified have succeeded many times. This House has women who carry both themselves and their parties. The member for Edmonton North and the member for Saint John are just two examples of the women I speak of. These strong women detest the insulting strategies of the Liberals. They got here because they earned it themselves, not because someone held their hands and fought their battles for them. They deserve to be proud of their efforts and their constituents are proud.

The women in the Canadian Alliance all got here on their merits. There were no special deals. There were no parachute candidates and no quotas. I am proud to be one of those women who earned her seat. My constituents were given a fair choice. If I may say so myself, I think they made the right choice. I got here because I earned my constituents' respect. I did not get here because my leader rigged the nomination process in my favour.

Some women in the Liberal Party got here with a helping hand, which subverted the democratic process. I think this can only serve to taint their accomplishments. Would it not be nicer if they all knew they got here because they deserved to do so, not because someone more powerful did? Unfortunately the gender equality they sought to achieve and represent was only possible because of the gender equality they engaged to get here.

The Liberals want to slide a campaign financing bill through the House of Commons under the shady excuse that it will help women get elected. How shameful. Women make up the majority of the population and increasingly detest their treatment as a special interest group. If this bill is not good enough for Canadians as a whole, it definitely is not good enough for women.

If for a moment I could accept the arguments of the proponents of this bill, I still cannot understand why the taxpayer has to pay for political parties they do not support. If voter apathy is growing and political involvement is dropping, the Liberals must address these problems up front. If Canadians cannot be persuaded to willingly support political parties, they should not be forced to do so through their taxes.

It is interesting that the bill does not address falling voter participation in any way. Canadians are becoming increasingly disenfranchised by the current political system. One voter in my riding said in a fit of frustration that it does not matter who one votes for, the government still gets in. If anything, the bill would encourage voter turnout to continue to drop.

If parties are not forced to involve Canadians for their financing, they are likely to avoid involving them at all. When their income is taken straight off the paycheques of all Canadians, where is the incentive to go door to door? If Canadians think that they do not see enough of their elected representatives currently, just wait and see what happens if this bill gets passed.

I truly feel there is no better way to increase voter turnout and participation in our democracy than to allow Canadians to contribute as they see fit. What could be more frustrating than being forced to donate to a party a person does not support?

The Prime Minister and the Liberals just do not understand what Canadians hate, yes, hate: being forced to pay for things they do not support. Look how upset Canadians got when they were forced to pay for cable channels they did not support. A channel that may have been accepted by the majority was rejected because of the resentment of being forced to pay for it. Let us not do the same thing to our democratic process.

I must question the timing of this initiative. The Prime Minister and the former finance minister have had almost a decade to bring forward this campaign finance reform. They never did. What have they done instead? Instead they have sucked every dollar from the taxpayers' pockets at every turn. Now it seems that personal vendettas, oversized egos and fear of political revenge by average Canadians are the motivation for campaign finance reform.

The bill takes one step forward and two steps backward. For many years union members complained that they had no choice in how much money they donated to what party. They detested their lack of input into political party donations. They often had to support a political party of their executive's choice, not of their choice. It appears the government set out to address this legitimate concern. It is proposing to limit the union contributions so significantly that they play no significant role in a particular party's financing.

On one hand, the government wants Canadians to have control of how their money is used politically and on the other hand the government moves in the opposite direction. Now it is proposing that taxpayers be forced to contribute to political parties involuntarily through their taxes. Why is there a double standard?

Honestly, I think the bill is a pre-emptive strike by the Liberals to replace forced taxpayer funding for what must be diminishing corporate donations. I cannot imagine the Canadian business community is donating to the Liberals like it used to. Broken promises, fraud investigations, billion dollar boondoggles, a lack of legislative agenda, failed trade talks, limitless spending and other reasons come to mind.

Many think the corporate and union donation ban will hurt the former finance minister's leadership bid. I do not think so. What could be more of a favour to the Prime Minister's replacement than to put in place a guaranteed income. This is a small guy from Shawinigan plan to steal millions from taxpayers to fund another campaign for a party that has lost touch with Canadians and their priorities. This was the guy who was supposed to bring democracy back to the House of Commons but instead earned the title of the friendly dictator. What a double standard.

In summary, I must say that I do not agree that the bill will bring more women to the House of Commons.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-24. The member for Brandon—Souris was to speak on this bill, but it is my understanding that his plane is late so I will speak on his behalf.

This is a bill that has been much discussed among members of our caucus, our colleagues in this place, our peers, and certainly one that will continue to be discussed. In particular, the bill would address a number of issues to do with campaign and party financing relating to the electoral system we have in Canada. Probably most importantly, it would address the issues of how we actually report the funding of political campaigns.

The bill would require electoral district associations along with leadership and nomination contestants to disclose to the Chief Electoral Officer the amounts and names of everyone donating more than $200. They would also be required to disclose all expenses incurred. Currently only candidates and political parties are required to disclose donations received. The bill sets out the rules governing such reporting. It looks from the road as though we would have a more reliable system, hopefully a more accountable system and, one would assume, a more transparent system.

I am not the critic for this particular piece of legislation, however there is one question that I have been asking for which I have not received an answer from anyone. If there is someone on the government side with the answer to this question when I am finished my remarks and comments I would appreciate hearing it. My question is, how much of the system is financed by government already? That would include, of course, the amount that is given back by the government, the cost of auditing all the disparate accounts of the 301 members of Parliament in this place, the cost of running individual campaigns, the cost of auditing the books, and the actual amount of money that is given back.

We may be surprised if we had that information. I would have thought, in a fair, accurate and accountable system, that would have been the point that the Prime Minister would have made when he introduced this piece of legislation. There seems to be no willingness on the government to tell us how much is actually being paid now, although we would expect that if we had that information we would be better able to make a decision that we will have to make about this particular piece of legislation. It may be higher than we suspect; it may be lower than we suspect.

There are a couple of other issues. Aaron Freeman, in the Hill Times , writes about the campaign fundraising bill by the numbers. He says, “The sleeper issue is how it will increase the power of parties and not the power of members of Parliament”. I would think most of us in this place would want to have a finished product at the end of the day that actually gives more power to individual members of Parliament. Along with more power we would also expect more accountability and transparency.

Aaron Freeman makes a number of points, but two in particular are worth repeating. He writes:

Based on the 2000 election, the government calculates this will result in payments of $18.9 million a year. However, this figure ignores that our population increases each year. More importantly, it does not take into account that the last election's voter turnout of approximately 57% was a record low. If voter participation returns to the levels of the pre-Liberal era, and our population continues to expand at the current rate, we can expect to pay an additional $5 million to $10 million in public funds for parties in the coming years.

Some would say, and maybe correctly, that this is the price of democracy. I do not have an argument with that, but I do have a word of caution. If it is the price of democracy then we should know that up front during the debate. We should know the final cost at the end of the day and the full projections of where public funding for political campaigns is headed.

Freeman goes on to say that Bill C-24 would allow the donor to claim 75% of the first $400 instead of the current $200, determining the cost to taxpayers of the credit would be very complicated. The finance department would have difficulty figuring out the current credit costs and it would be hard to know how many donors would adjust their donation pattern in response to the new reforms.

The government estimates the added price tag at $3 million in non-election years and $6 million in election years. Quite a gap between $3 million and $6 million, of course, but again my question and point to my colleagues is that we really have some estimates that are based on record low voter turnouts. We do not know in any way, shape or form the actual cost of this piece of legislation to Canadian taxpayers at the end of the day.

I find that problematic. The idea that the taxpayers of Canada should finance political campaigns may be the right way to go. I am not saying it is not. I am saying I would like to see more information and accurate information laid on the table. All parliamentarians deserve that.

This bill would deal mainly with expenses and reporting of those expenses, nomination spending limits, surpluses and donation limits. The surplus and donation limits are worth going over again.

Currently, candidates for election must return any surplus to either their riding association or their party. Bill C-24 would require that surpluses incurred by leadership candidates also be transferred to the party or to a riding association. I think the horse is already out of the barn on that one because we have a number of leadership candidates out there, and maybe this is good judgment on behalf of the government, who are reported to have raised in excess of millions of dollars and no one knows where those leadership funds are. There are a number of them who are now ministers of the Crown and former ministers of the Crown who have left politics.

It would seem to me that either the government is speaking from knowledge that this was wrong to begin with and refused to change it, or it thinks that now it has had a number of plums and payouts to party faithful and that now all of a sudden it can change it for anyone else in the future, as it should never have been there to begin with, I might add.

Regarding donation limits, individuals would be banned from contributing more than $10,000 per year in total to a registered party and its electoral district associations, candidates and nomination contestants. I have listened to some of the questions being asked on this piece of legislation and this one seems to raise most of the issues. Perhaps this will get settled in committee; perhaps not. Perhaps we will say that although someone can only contribute up to $10,000 per year, if there are six members in a family, each of them could contribute $10,000 and therefore, although the family might be classified as one entity, it would actually be contributing six times the total allowable amount for a single person or a single entity as in the legal definition of the word.

Individuals would also be banned from contributing more than $10,000 to leadership contestants. Corporations, unions and associations would be banned from donating to any registered party or leadership contestant. However they would be able to contribute up to $1,000 in total per year to a party's candidates, nomination contestants and electoral district associations.

When I look at that, it begs a greater question that somehow corporations, unions and associations would be banned from donating to any registered party or leadership contestant, yet individuals would be able to donate up to $10,000. This question was raised by the member for Windsor--St.Clair. Why is a union or union office limited to a set amount? Whereas a corporation, which could pay bonuses to its employees and funnel the funds to leadership candidates or to a political party, are not? Maybe these issues are being addressed the same as the cost of this.

Exactly what is the cost to Canadian taxpayers now and what is the cost after the voter turnout is factored in, which was an alltime record low in the last election at 57%? If population increases at a scheduled rate and if voters start to turn out in numbers closer to what we could expect, at around the 70% mark, then that skews the figures on which this legislation is based.

The legislation also deals with reimbursement of election expenses. The annual allowance to political parties would be equal to roughly $1.50 per vote received by the party in the previous general election. To qualify, the party must have received either 2% of the votes cast nationally or 5% of the votes cast in the riding where the party ran a candidate. In the past that amount was 15% of the total votes received for the party to receive its share of its election expenses.

The point remains, we have changed the numbers and I do not see an accurate accounting of everything being factored onto one page. This should be a fairly simple operation. We should get a two page handout showing the cost of the last campaign, the cost of the next campaign and how it affects the riding associations and individual members of Parliament.

There seems to be a number of areas in the legislation where it spends as much time explaining a few simplistic things and as it does avoiding some difficult issues like trust funds and what happens to cabinet ministers in the Liberal government who run for the leadership and amass $2.5 million or $2.6 million in some of the trust accounts. Quite frankly we do not know where they are. One would expect that some of those accounts would be promissory notes, so if they run for leader they will receive $10,000 now and $50,000 later or $5,000 now and $10,000 coming later.

We do know a number of leadership hopefuls from the Liberal benches are no longer leadership hopefuls and they have not passed in their trust accounts. I assume many of them must have them in their pockets. The only way we can know differently is to have them tell us. No one is certainly offering that information. We can only assume that the individual leadership hopefuls still have the bulk of those funds in their own accounts.

Certainly, if this type of legislation does anything to prevent that type of abuse by public officials, then I absolutely support this part of the bill. This is the type of legislation at which we should be looking.

I really wish I had better faith in the government's managerial skills. I do not think we could discuss a single issue in the House, whether it is the upcoming budget tomorrow, if there is anything left in the budget that has not been leaked. We will find that out in 24 hours or less. Let us take a look at the track record. We are not certain this eliminates the trust funds and the ability to fundraise the way the leadership contestants have in the past.

We have not seen any issue that the government has handled with fiduciary responsibility to the Canadian citizens and taxpayers. We have not seen those issues come back to us with proper accounting. We have five million SIN cards, social insurance numbers, that are unaccounted. We have an $800 million cost overrun in a long gun registry and there is no guarantee it will work.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to build on what my colleague from Windsor said, which was the fact that the Alliance Party would accrue quite a bit of money in this new regime. I want to make one point very clear.

Given the fact that we have always had public contribution by virtue of the tax credit on $100, $200 and $300 donations that essentially means that the Alliance Party is prepared to take public funds on the basis of its ability to raise money but not on its ability to get votes. That is very revealing.

I do support Bill C-24. One of the elements that has not been discussed too much is the accounting, the reporting around nominations, leaderships and so on. These things are long overdue and I am pleased we will be raising the bar in terms of keeping Canadians abreast of what is happening and where party finances come from and where they go.

I have always supported some kind of limit on corporations, including bans, because I do believe, although I do not think there is any truth in it, that Canadians link donations with work for the government and so on. In my case, if someone in my constituency were to give me a $3,000 donation and that person received a contract at CFB Gagetown it would all be honest and legitimate. Donations are encouraged by the system and contracts are heavily scrutinized by the crown construction agency, nevertheless a story would appear in the paper indicating that somebody gave me $3,000 and received a contract for it. It would be unfair to the vendor, unfair to national defence and, frankly, it would be unfair to me. We need to take this problem seriously. However, we do not want to replace corporate donations with stacked individual donations. That is a concern and it should be looked at.

I do support the bill but I believe the individual donation level is perhaps a little high. The corporation limits might be broadened to two or three ridings instead of just one but I do not feel all that strongly about that. I support the limits. I also support the ban on corporation donations to the centre and I support public funding of political parties as being democratic.

When the Prime Minister spoke on this issue earlier he said that there could be some unintended consequences. I would like to speak to a couple of them.

First, in Atlantic Canada most associations are federal and provincial at the same time. Unfortunately, in my province there is limiting legislation, and it is $6,000 individual and corporate. That means that the Liberal Party of New Brunswick could get a $6,000 donation and the Liberal Party of Canada could not take that. That means that eventually there would be a great deal of pressure to divide parties. From an operational point of view, that would be bad for the process, bad for my region and bad for those areas where there is no critical mass if we had to divide simply by virtue of the fact that the province could receive money that the feds could not receive. That would taint the money to some extent. That is an important feature. New Brunswick has this legislation. I was executive director of the Liberal Party at the time we negotiated it the other way. It is something we have to look it. We can fix it but it will take some work and it needs to be brought to the attention of the House.

I also think we need more time than the six months identified in the legislation in order to do this right. We are trying to make a transition from political parties that are supported by companies or unions to one that is fundamentally supported by individuals. That is the intent of the legislation. That will take some time and I am not sure six months is long enough. In our experience in New Brunswick, the transition was made over a couple of years.

I also believe that the provisions in the bill for nominations perhaps are too high. It is 50% of the allowable amount in an election and it should be 25% at a maximum.

I also would like to see the legislation speak to the question of third party advertising as has been mentioned.

To respond to the issue of public funds, which has been brought up by many members, I would like the House to know that in the province of New Brunswick we have received public funds since 1977-78. In fact, at its height we received $2.18 a vote, much more than the $1.50 proposed in the legislation. It is not unprecedented. We have had the rebates that were mentioned earlier and tax credits on donations in the past.

When Mr. Hatfield left office in New Brunswick in 1987, all of the pundits across the political spectrum, all of the editorialists, and all of the people observing the political process, when asked what was the most important thing Mr. Hatfield did for the province of New Brunswick, they all turned to political process financing with public funds.

At the end of the day this is a very important exercise in democracy and over time the taxpayers of Canada will come to see it that way, just as they have in my province of New Brunswick.

I would like to thank the government for introducing this important and overdue legislation. I would also like to thank those people in other parties who would find a way to support this. It is important for the country and the political process.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing).

I should say at the outset that I support full disclosure of political donations, full transparency and accountability. Canadians should know what individuals, companies, unions and other organizations are donating to which MPs, senators, candidates and political parties.

I support much that is in Bill C-24, in particular measures that would lead to greater transparency and accountability in the political process. I am not sure, though, why political financing has emerged as a political priority at this time. In my view, we have many other pressing priorities: the potential for war in Iraq, for example; health care funding and accountability; implementing the Kyoto accord; renewing our public service; and fixing the gun control registry problems.

Legislation should be used sparingly, in my view, as a tool to correct a wrong, fix a problem and/or enhance public policy and administration. Legislation should also always be preceded with meaningful consultation with Canadians.

I am not convinced that the political financing aspects of Bill C-24 meet the two tests I have just described. Allow me to explain why.

First, I am not sure what problem we are trying to fix or how the bill would improve public policy and administration in Canada. The bill would allow political donations to be made by individuals only, the exception being contributions of up to $1,000 for a corporation or trade union.

Corporations and unions have been involved in the political process in Canada for a long time, perhaps since as early as Confederation. We need to encourage, not discourage, their participation. Do we have any evidence that corporations or unions buy influence when they donate to political parties in Canada? I am not aware of any such evidence.

More recently, the government did have some problems with a sponsorship program in the Province of Quebec, but the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is making significant changes to this program. In fact, the sponsorship program will be delivered largely in house, not contracted out. Allegations of wrongdoing and favouritism are under investigation by the Auditor General and, where appropriate, the RCMP to deal with these problems of sponsorship. In my view, this aspect of alleged political interference is being dealt with very aggressively by the government.

The reality is that most large corporations and many of the smaller ones make donations to all political parties. The company I worked for before being elected, a large natural resource company in Canada, supported all political parties in Canada. I went to fundraisers for the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives and the NDP.

In 1998, four of Canada's chartered banks proposed two mergers. I should note that Canada's major banks are the largest financial contributors to political parties in Canada. By and large, they donate to all parties. Did their large donations facilitate that merger of the banks which the banks very seriously wanted to transact? No, it did not make any difference at all. If banks in Canada merge, it will hinge on prudential and competitiveness factors and on whether or not the proposed mergers are in the public interest. It will be no more or no less than that.

Do we in this House believe that when ministers are making decisions they refer to lists of corporate, individual and union donations? This is naive in the extreme.

We are told that buying influence is not a real problem, but that there is a perception among Canadians that this is the case. I believe that as legislators we have enough real challenges to deal with. We should not be legislating to deal with perceptions.

I should note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Fredericton.

Comparisons with the U.S. system are sometimes made. We all know that the amounts spent in Canada to finance political parties and candidates do not even come close when compared with the system in the United States. By way of example, election campaign expenses in my riding of Etobicoke North, as is the case with all political federal ridings, are limited by law and are thoroughly monitored and audited by Elections Canada.

During the last election campaign, my campaign expenses were limited to some $55,000 and of that my campaign team spent approximately $35,000 on the election campaign. When we compare that to the multimillion election campaign expenses incurred to elect U.S. senators, congressmen and women and the U.S. president, our figures pale in comparison.

The $1,000 limit for corporations would have limited or no impact in my riding of Etobicoke North. Only rarely would my riding association or official agent during an election campaign receive a cheque in excess of $500 from any company, individual or union.

At the national level, however, with the legislation before us, political parties would be starved of funds. Taxpayers would have to make up the difference, some $110 million over the typical life of a government.

It is true that the taxpayer subsidizes the political process to date with tax credits and the like, but we would be adding a further demand on the Canadian taxpayer to support this process which would be close to $110 million over the typical life of a government.

I personally would support some limits on corporate or union donations to political parties, a limit of say $10,000 for both corporations and unions, but why would we ask Canadians to further subsidize the political process? I hope the government will be open to amendments to the bill. The government says that it is.

This now leads me to the process that the government has adopted in introducing the legislation. The period for consultation has been very limited, almost non-existent. The party president of our own Liberal Party of Canada has called the political financing policy proposal “dumb as a bag of hammers”. I am sure that if he had it to do over again he might not have said that but that is what he said. I am sure many political parties share that view.

The grassroots members and volunteers of federal political parties across Canada need more time to digest the bill and opportunities for input leading to changes. Many technical matters are in need of review. For example, if in any one year there is a nomination, an election or perhaps two elections in one year, which has happened in Canada, how do we allocate the limits? There are a number of other technical questions like that.

The people at the grassroots level are the people closest to the action. They know what works and what does not and they are very familiar with the old adage “if it is working, why fix it?”

We need a transparent and accountable political process and system. We should not, under any circumstances, accept the concept of influence buying. Pragmatic limits to corporate and union contributions to political parties may be required but the limits proposed in Bill C-24 are unreasonably low. Canadian taxpayers deserve better.

We should proceed with the bill based on the principles enunciated but improve the bill in committee.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

That is what they say: what a great idea. They are against debate. They are putting time allocation in reverse. What they are doing is saying that this bill will never pass at all. That would mean that every one of their speakers would speak on the amendment and every one on a subamendment and then start back with the amendment until they introduce a new subamendment. It is time allocation with the time allocation being forever, at least as they see it. That is what they have moved to the bill to amend electoral laws. They do not want it to go to committee. They do not want the debate. They want to stall.

Incidentally, the official opposition has put that measure on every single bill that has come to the House of Commons since last December. We saw the sad spectacle, and I will depart from my text a little here, on the floor of the House of Commons last Friday. I invite everyone to check Hansard and read what the official opposition critic said. I see him standing in front of me, Hansard in hand. The words were something like this, I am in favour of the bill, and he went on to say so, but my House leader told me to move the following reasoned amendment.

Then he moved an amendment that the bill not be read a second time. That is what we have. We have the official opposition blocking every single piece of legislation, even when it speaks in favour of a piece of legislation. That is what we have before us today.

Why? Because opposition members are determined not to work. They do not want to work. They do not want to do the mandate, the mandate given to them by the people of Canada, and the office that they swore to do to the best of their ability to govern this country. Now it is becoming obvious. There was not much sincerity in that.

Let me go back to Bill C-24. In terms of the direct funding, provinces such as Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have measures that are virtually identical to what is in Bill C-24.

The amounts differ, however. It is agreed that the amount of financing that comes from taxpayers in Quebec is less than what is proposed in this bill. That said, however, if we take the 1976 amount and adjust it for today's rate of inflation, it is nearly identical. The amount in P.E.I. is far higher, however, and New Brunswick falls between the two.

Thus there is taxpayer financing of political parties in three Canadian provinces. Quebec, of course, was the one to invent the system. That is a fact, and naturally we must acknowledge that the system of democratization that was inaugurated in Quebec was very much ahead of its time. The Prime Minister himself acknowledged this.

I have met with officials of Élection Québec, as well as with officials in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. There is no doubt at all in my mind that, on most points, but not all, the Quebec legislation is more advanced.

I also borrowed some of the things that existed in Ontario, such as publication of annual audit results for individual electoral ridings. Ontario has, without a doubt, the best system, and it has been in place since 1975 or 1976.

I see the hon. member for Peterborough is in the House. We both served as MPPs for several years at Queen's Park. When I arrived in Ottawa, I found the system to be flawed, when, for an electoral riding that was exactly the same as the one I represented at Queen's Park, my riding association was not required to have an audit, nor to report anything publicly. Nor was the riding association required to provide Elections Canada with a financial accounting. Yet, at the provincial level, the same riding, identical in size and in every other manner, was required to provide this. Why so? What is keeping us from having greater transparency? I think it is in all of our best interests to do so.

We borrowed from the different provinces, or at least from the bigger provinces and elsewhere that I had the opportunity to visit. We learned and we tried to take from the best that we could find everywhere, to come up with a system that, I think, will greatly improve what we have.

However, we will not be able to do so unless we pass the bill at second reading and refer it to committee so that all of our colleagues from around the country can provide their opinions on it in order to improve it.

My parliamentary secretary, who is from the Atlantic region, has important issues to raise about that region and the impact there. We are all looking forward to studying it in committee to see how to improve the bill and to deal with the issues that come under provincial jurisdiction. I have had similar conversations with a member from New Brunswick who also wants the bill before committee so it can be improved.

The other day, some people wondered what had happened to the famous trust funds; I sometimes referred to them as the infamous trust funds, depending on the context. These people wanted to know up to what point a trust fund would be prohibited and, if the act was not sufficiently clear, they wanted it clarified so that if money were withdrawn for political expenses, they would have to be subject to transparency rules. Receipts would have to be issued each time.

That is the objective, and the bill is being sent to committee. However, the first speaker opposite, who was from the official opposition, decided to present a dilatory motion—immediately condemned by the next speaker, who was from the Bloc Quebecois—to prevent the bill from being read a second time.

The bill has the support of four of the five parties in the House of Commons, although in some cases this support is a bit more reserved. But, in principle, four of the five parties like the bill. They say that it should go forward, that certain parts need to be improved, admittedly, but that it must go forward, as quickly as possible in the view of some people, even on the other side of the House.

So what happens the first day? The official opposition blocks it—pardon the pun. The Canadian Alliance blocked the bill, as it has blocked all other bills since December. Everything is at a standstill. According to the Canadian Alliance, Parliament is not working any more, but that is because the Alliance no longer wants to.

That is not how things work. We are here to work, to do our part, to do our job, to send bills to various parliamentary committees to be improved, and then passed.

Today, all that has stopped. Things cannot go on like this. Our parliamentary committees have the solemn duty to meet with Canadians throughout the country. Not a single committee is travelling. Why? Because the Canadian Alliance opposite has decided that there will be no more travelling, that no one will go anywhere any more.

On the other side of the House, they are preaching so-called democracy, a democracy that consists of refusing Canadians the right to speak to parliamentarians. That is the democracy invoked by members of the Alliance.

We see these so-called democrats across from us. Canadians are fed up. There is a reason their popularity is only at 8% in the opinion polls. In my riding, there are more people than that who believe Elvis Presley is still alive.

No, that is not democracy, it is blackmail. Canadians do not want this. We have excellent initiatives before Parliament. Even in cases where some parliamentarians do not entirely agree with the legislation, they still have the right to consider the legislation, they still have the right to express their views on it, to send it to parliamentary committee, to do an in-depth study and lastly, vote against it, if that is their choice.

They have the right to do their work without being held hostage by a small group across the room from the Alliance party, which is not really popular with anyone.

That is the message I want to give this House this morning. Let us move forward with Bill C-24. Send it to committee for improvement. We are open to improvements, but we are not open to that little group in front of us that says, “We no longer create legislation; we continue to receive our paycheques, but we have stopped working”. That has been that party's attitude since before the holidays.

We must continue to do our work. We will do our work on this side of the House. Canadians will see that the government intends to represent their interests. Even if I disagree from time to time with the other parties, I must admit that they too want to continue working; they do not want to be a part of this quasi vacation declared by the other side of the House, for reasons which, in my view, are completely invalid.

I ask all colleagues to support Bill C-24 at second reading and to send it to committee to see how we can improve the bill. I ask that the Canadian Alliance, which enjoys the support of almost nobody across Canada, to stop the stalling tactics on every piece of legislation. If it were not for the votes inside its own caucus, perhaps nobody else would support the party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in favour of Bill C-24. The proposed legislation would improve the transparency and fairness of Canada's electoral system and address the perception that corporations, unions and the wealthy exercise a disproportionate influence in our political system.

Canada's electoral system already is the envy of many countries. As Canadians we have participated in election observation missions right around the world. As a former Minister of International Cooperation, which I was a number of years ago, it was always such a pleasure to see a number of our fellow citizens under Elections Canada, sometimes under UN mandate, participate in election observation in many countries of the world. We have done so through the Commonwealth and through la Francophonie and each time have earned the respect of other countries.

The amendments we have before us today continue the modernization of our electoral system that began with the enactment of the new Canada Elections Act in 1970 and the 1974 Election Expenses Act.

I had the pleasure of sponsoring Bill C-2 during the last Parliament. This is a bill intended to consolidate all Canadian electoral legislation and it has done so for a good number of measures. This being a democracy, however, there is no limit to how far we can go in improving certain legislation.

Today we have before us a new bill which builds on what we have done in the past, improving our electoral legislation still further.

The bill follows the Prime Minister's commitment of last June, in his excellent eight point action plan, to bring forward new legislation for political financing. This commitment was reiterated in the Speech from the Throne.

I hear our colleagues across the way expressing enthusiasm at the initiative. Perhaps later they can express that enthusiasm in their debate.

It also reflects the consultations that I have had with political participants and it builds upon existing political financial measures that exist both in Canada and elsewhere in the world.

Hon. members already are familiar with the key elements of the proposed legislation. The Prime Minister presented it to us in the excellent speech that he gave to the House last week. As such, I would like to take the opportunity to focus on the public financing provisions of the bill, which have received considerable praise from the general public but which have also drawn criticism, undeserved criticism of course but criticism nonetheless, from the hon. leader of the opposition.

On the key public financing measures, the virtual elimination of political contributions from corporations and unions and the new limits on individual contributions would have a significant financial impact on political parties and, arguably, to some extent, on candidates as well. For that reason the bill would build on existing financial measures already provided for to political parties to maintain the viability of our electoral system.

The measures contained in Bill C-24 are the following: the rate of reimbursement of electoral expenses for parties is increased from 22.5% to 50%; the definition of expenses eligible for reimbursement is broadened to include a portion of polls during election campaigns, and the ceiling for reimbursement to political parties is raised correspondingly; the percentage of votes candidates must obtain in their ridings in order to qualify for reimbursement of electoral expenses is lowered to 10% from the current 15%.

On this point it is to be noted that almost all candidates in the last election who would have received this funding, virtually all of them, 115 out of the 120 or so, are for parties represented on the opposition side of the House. Therefore, that particular measure favours almost exclusively opposition political parties. Almost no defeated Liberal candidate would have qualified for the particular measure I just described.

There would also be an allowance for registered parties of $1.50 for each vote they received in the previous election, to be paid on a quarterly basis.

Also, we are proposing amendments to the Income Tax Act to double the amount of an individual political contribution that is eligible for the 75% tax credit from $200 to $400, with of course the adjustments for each other bracket of credit accordingly. This would make it easier for candidates to receive smaller donations at the same time as the larger ones would no longer be possible.

As the Prime Minister noted in his opening remarks, public funding of the federal electoral process has been a longstanding tradition in Canada. Just in case members across the way are pretending that we as Canadians invented something here, we have not. Everyone knows of the U.S. primary system for the president and how a particular presidential candidate is awaiting, having won a certain number of votes, in order to qualify for the famous matching funds coming from the public treasury in the United States. So in fact--

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition day. On Friday we will consider Bill C-25, the public service reform bill.

Next Monday we will consider the bill that would reduce the cost of gun control, namely Bill C-10A, the amendments to the criminal code, because we want to reduce gun control costs. On Tuesday we will return to Bill C-24 respecting election finances until 4 p.m. when the Minister of Finance will present his no doubt excellent budget to the House.

The remainder of the week, that is Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of next week, I intend to call the budget debates.

Canada Elections Act

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

To begin my presentation on Bill C-24, I feel like saying, “Finally”. Finally, the government got it. Finally, there will be, at the federal level, legislation to clean up election financing.

Sometimes in the House, people do not like us bringing up things that are being done in Quebec, good things that work. I will point out that we have had political party financing legislation in Quebec since 1977. It was one of René Lévesque's greatest legacies.

I will also point out that those members of the Bloc Quebecois who were in this House when our party was founded started off as independents. In 1993, these members were elected to form the official opposition. Others joined the Bloc Quebecois in 1997 and in the 2000 election. More recently, we enjoyed two great victories in the ridings of Berthier—Montcalm and Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.

Since 1994, Bloc Quebecois members have been demanding that the federal government pass such legislation. The Bloc Quebecois readily supports the principle of the bill on political party financing. It welcomes these major steps forward in terms of financing by individuals and believes that, while imperfect, this bill will help democratize the financing of federal political parties.

I would like to review briefly a few important aspects of the bill. The limit for contributions by individuals is $10,000 per party per year. I will have an opportunity to comment on this. Members will recall that l said earlier that the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of the bill.

Corporations, trade unions and other associations may make contributions up to a maximum of $1,000 annually. Surveys will become admissible refundable election expenses, and the limit for election expenses will be raised accordingly.

This bill will come into force on January 1, 2004, or six months after royal assent, whichever is the later. I will have a comment to make on that.

Riding associations, nomination contestants and leadership contestants will have to register with Elections Canada and provide financial reports. Disclosure requirements are being extended for leadership races. Campaign expenses for nomination contestants will be set at 50% of the contestant's maximum allowable expenses during the previous election campaign in their riding.

The percentage of each party's election expenses that can be reimbursed will increase from 22.5% to 50%. The minimum percentage of votes for parties to be eligible for reimbursement of expenses, meaning the minimum percentage to be eligible for expenses, will decrease from 15% to 10%.

Political parties will be entitled to a quarterly allowance of 37.5¢ per valid vote. The maximum tax credit for donations to political parties will be set at $650 per year. The first $400 will be subject to a tax credit of 75%.

I was saying earlier that, in the early days of the Bloc Quebecois, following Quebec's example, it passed a provision in its founding statutes and manifesto that prohibited contributions from companies, even if federal legislation on political party financing permitted such contributions.

During our 2000 convention, this was democratically expressed by the party faithful, not by the party leadership or a financial institution, nor dictated by the big banks or by the oil and gas companies, as is the case for other political parties.

We know why the government does not seem to want to do more than pay lip service when it comes to the price of oil and gasoline, whether we are talking about gas at the pump or heating oil. This is quite simply because these big companies, these oil and gas companies are stuffing the pockets of the Liberal party. It is hard to bite the hand that feeds you. That is why the Minister of Industry's answers are so lacking in substance and why he is refusing to intervene.

Fortunately, the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge rose and said that there is in fact a competition problem when it comes to gas prices. That is another matter altogether; I will come back to the bill.

It is important to understand why people were against amending legislation on political party financing. On April 4, 5 and 6, the Bloc Quebecois will have another convention where supporters will be able to have their say, whether it be on the issue of ridings or on regional issues. However, during our convention in 2000, our supporters told us, “in order to put us on an equal footing with the other parties, we are asking you, as your supporters, in the mandate you received in the parliamentary wing, to change this rule”. That is why the party executive changed the Bloc Quebecois' financing rules.

Our supporters only resigned themselves to this after observing our inability to have federal political party financing rules changed. We do not have a time machine. If Bill C-24, as it now stands, had been introduced before our 2000 convention, our supporters would have seen that the government was starting to yield to reason and that the needed changes would indeed be implemented. That is why supporters asked that we change the party's constitution.

Since its creation, the Bloc Quebecois has called for changes to the Canada Elections Act so that only contributions from individuals be accepted to finance political parties.

In 1994, our colleague, the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, moved a motion to that effect, under private members' business. I will read the motion he moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation limiting solely to individuals the right to donate to a federal political party, and restricting such donations to a maximum of $5,000 a year.

I would remind members that this motion was defeated in the House and that the Liberal members, with a few exceptions, voted against it, including the member for LaSalle—Émard.

In closing, I would say, as we were saying at the beginning, that even though the bill is a step in the right direction it does contain some flaws, such as the $10,000 limit per party per year per individual. We feel that this is too much, when compared to the $3,000 limit set by the Quebec legislation.

The other point being that corporations, unions and other associations are allowed to make contributions up to a total of $1,000 each year. We believe that the bill could have prohibited this type of financing, as is the case in Quebec.

I would suggest that increased funding from the public is a necessary counterbalance and that this legislation should encourage the possibilities of increasing funding from the public so that political parties can remain independent and so that we do not have to owe our election to big corporations, but to average citizens who donated $2, $5, $10, or $20 and said “I would like you to represent me in Ottawa”. That is what we are asking for.

Although the Bloc Quebecois welcomes the new provisions of the bill as they relate to leadership races, we think it is a shame that everything possible was done so that the proposed provisions would not apply to the current Liberal leadership race, since the bill is scheduled to come into effect on January 1, 2004 at the earliest. It is clear that some people did not want the provisions of this bill to apply to the current Liberal leadership race.

As we said in the introduction, despite the loopholes that we have uncovered, the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of this bill on political party financing, but we will wait to make a definitive statement until we have seen the results from the work done in committee.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, democracy is not just marking an X on the ballot paper every four or five years. It is much more than that.

I think free votes in the House, free expression, and free debate are all components. However, during any election there should be an equal and fair opportunity for any candidate or political party during the election.

The last time we debated the Canada Elections Act in the House, the government tried to abuse its majority in a way by putting components in the bill which would favour the majority. Bill C-24, which we are debating, would give the majority party a tremendous advantage in the future. For example, the allocation of funds would be in proportion to the votes or in proportion to the number of seats it has, so if that always continues, smaller fringe parties or fringe candidates would not have the opportunity to raise enough money in comparison.

How would the member respond to the fact that this bill is not favouring his party more than any other political party, smaller candidate or smaller party in forthcoming elections?

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

Mr. Speaker, I obviously cannot do these two questions justice in the time provided.

In reply to the second question, I believe all political parties, with the exception of the Canadian Alliance, are currently carrying some debt. I think that even a cursory examination of the funding that will flow to political parties when Bill C-24 passes, since the Prime Minister says it will pass, will increase their finances and help them deal with their debt. That may or may not be part of their motive in supporting the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague alluded to a number of problems that preceded the bill, and dealing with scandals.

As I said at the outset of my remarks, the government came into power in 1993 at least partly running on the platform of cleaning up the image and restoring some integrity to government. It was a powerful selling point when the Liberals were door-knocking and campaigning in 1993.

Speaking from experience, I was a candidate in 1988 and again in 1993, and was successful in 1993. I know, from door-knocking in Prince George--Peace River, that constituents were very upset with the Mulroney government at that time. I would argue that government had been scandal ridden and had a lot of problems when it came to influence peddling. A lot of ministers had resigned.

When the Liberals came along and the current Prime Minister ran for the job of prime minister in 1992-93, they made these promises that they would clean up Parliament and government and that they would restore the people's trust, that sacred trust that must exist in a democratic country between the people and their government. It was a powerful incentive for people to vote Liberal in 1993.

As my colleague and I have alluded to, unfortunately the scandals have continued. I guess it is open to argument whether this government is better or worse than the one which preceded it. I would argue that they are both of a similar duration; nine years of the Mulroney Conservatives and nine years now of the current Prime Minister's Liberal government. We would have to tabulate how many scandals there have been, how many ministers have resigned, how many ministers should have resigned, how many fairly substantial allegations, whether proven in the end or not of influence peddling and that type of immoral or unethical activity, have been charged against both governments and do a balance sheet to compare them.

However I do know, and I think I speak for most if not all members in the House, there is a growing cynicism on the part of Canadian voters and it is reflected in those who increasingly do not bother to show up at the polls to vote. That is dangerous. In a small way I commend the Prime Minister for bringing forward Bill C-24 and for at least showing some willingness to begin to address that. However Bill C-24 will not do the job.

Restricting corporate donations to $1,000 and replacing it with public money based upon a $1.50 Liberal head tax for every Canadian who shows up at the polls to vote, will only further discourage people to vote. Corporations simply will find some other way to support the political parties or the candidates of their choices. The limit in Bill C-24 is $10,000 if the donation comes from an individual. The corporation can turn over sufficient money to its board of directors, its executive, its CEO and his or her family, or the employees or whatever. There are other ways.

We have seen that in the United States. The Americans have some very tough laws dealing with political financing but it does not prevent it from happening. They just become a little more imaginative in how they funnel the money.

The bill does not address the problem of an unethical government. That is what I was trying to get at with my speech. We saw that in the Shawinigate scandal. We saw that a number of times in Parliament when different scandals were revealed either in question period or during debate. Ministers basically set their standard of behaviour according to the Prime Minister's standard of behaviour. When he intervened, for example, with the Business Development Bank on behalf of a constituent at a time, when I think most Canadians would be seriously concerned about a conflict in a situation like that, he argued in this place that he was just doing his job as a member of Parliament. That is how he viewed it.

That is where we have the problem. When a Prime Minister thinks that way, pretty soon all his ministers think like that and then everyone thinks like that. What does the public do? The public says if that is where the bar is, everyone will fall over it.

As I said, there is a real problem with voter apathy in Canada and it is incumbent upon all politicians of all political stripes to begin to address it and be serious about restoring the trust that has been broken between the Canadian public and their politicians and Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, specifically dealing with political financing. At the outset of my remarks this afternoon, I would like to say that never in a million years would I have thought that the Liberal government would discover the error of its ways, but here we are debating Bill C-24, which is at least an attempt on the part of the government to self-impose new rules to clean up its act.

The legislation would primarily do three things. Riding associations and leadership candidates would be included under the regulatory framework for registration and financial accounting under the Canada Elections Act. Allowable contributions to political parties, their riding associations and candidates would be more stringently limited. Corporations, unions and unincorporated organizations would be restricted to an annual donation limit of $1,000 a year to riding associations or individual candidates, while individuals would be allowed an annual limit of some $10,000 a year to a political party, riding association or individual candidate. Political parties would consequently be compensated for reduced corporate donations by overhauling financial rules and granting direct public financing.

After nine years of scandalous accusations and countless RCMP investigations, the Prime Minister expects that by tweaking the Canada Elections Act he can tell Canadians his scandal ridden government is a problem of the past. Canadians are very familiar with the ongoing troubles of the Liberal government. A number of ministers have been removed from their posts because of lucrative contracts being awarded to Liberal-friendly firms which have made liberal donations to their party.

In theory, eliminating corporate donations could possibly mitigate the problem, but it would not address the more serious problem of an ethically challenged Liberal government. For any major policy decision of a government, stakeholders should always be consulted to discuss any potential impacts. Corporations have always had an influence on government and they will continue to funnel money through their executive, board members or employees. The same obviously holds true for individual Canadians.

Stakeholders deserve to have a say on public policy matters affecting them. However, there comes a point when it no longer serves the public interest. When businesses need to make donations to a political party in order to be heard or to be considered for a government contract, it is indicative of a problem with the government, not the private sector. A responsible and an ethical government does not check a list of donors before deciding how much access they have to a minister of the crown.

I am reminded that a number of years ago there was a member in this place who got into quite a bit of hot water because he had actually refused to provide service to a constituent because he knew that the constituent had not voted for him in the previous election. I think that all members of Parliament from all parties at that time were appalled by that type of conduct.

The Liberal government, as I was saying, hit an all-time new low before the last election when the member for Scarborough Southwest refused to offer that assistance to a Canadian war veteran. The member's reasoning behind his decision was that because the veteran did not vote for him, he should not have to provide any assistance as a member of Parliament.

Quite rightly, this revelation shocked Canadians across the country, as it did members of Parliament from all parties. Even the most partisan politician recognizes that a constituent's political stripe has nothing to do with the services he or she is entitled to by his or her member of Parliament.

Yet if we outlaw large corporate donations from the realm of federal politics, would it fix the problem? That is the question we must ask. Eliminating financial donations would help, but what about other potential conflicts? We are not strangers to hearing about ministers staying at luxurious corporate chalets or ministers making policy decisions that affect their private interests.

We can pass laws and set restrictions to uphold the integrity of Parliament until we are blue in the face but it will do nothing if the government has no ethical standards to begin with.

During the 1993 election, the Liberal Party campaigned on upholding high ethical standards in order to restore integrity to the federal government. Of the many promises that were published in the Liberal red book, a whole chapter was dedicated to governing with integrity. That is what it was entitled.

I found the following interesting quote from the Liberal red book of 1993:

Yet after nine years of Conservative rule, cynicism about public institutions, governments, politicians and the political process, is at an all-time high. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored. The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable. There is evidence today of considerable dissatisfaction with government and a steady erosion of confidence in the people and institutions of the public sector. This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes: some have to do with the ethical behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political leadership.

Well, these words from the Liberal red book are probably truer today than they were back then. We have now sustained nine years with the Liberal government and I would argue that public cynicism of government is even now more widespread than it was in 1993.

The Prime Minister's misguided attempt at restoring public confidence in government will come at a heavy cost to taxpayers. With no corporate donations, all political parties would be compensated with direct public financing. At approximately $1.50 per vote, every political party would stand to gain from this arrangement. However, it raises several serious concerns.

Although contributions from individual Canadians would be allowed to continue, political parties could become a little too comfortable I would argue, with a regular paycheque from taxpayers. Under this scheme, there is potential for a broadened disconnect, and I would argue that the disconnect is too broad already between the electorate and the respective political affiliation.

It is well known that each political party attempts to garner support from a particular spectrum of society. The NDP, for example, looks for support from left leaning or more socialist supporters by representing their issues in Parliament. For those who agree and identify with that philosophy, many will make a financial contribution in support of those efforts. This holds true for every political party inside and outside the House of Commons.

As politicians for our respective political organizations, if we do not represent and act on issues important to Canadians, we suffer financially as a result. If we were to receive an annual paycheque from the government--from the taxpayers I would argue--some parties could potentially become complacent and not work as hard to gather the support they need from the Canadian people. Furthermore, if taxpayers were to foot the bill for every eligible political organization in the country, every Canadian would be forced to have their hard-earned dollars go toward a party that may not represent their personal views. We currently see this with mandatory union donations.

The New Democratic Party has a strong affiliation with important Canadian unions that make large financial contributions to that party. Individual union workers are required to pay union dues and indirectly fund a political party that they may not choose to support. Under Bill C-24, all Canadians would be required to financially support political parties that they do not support.

I wish no offence to the Bloc Québécois members of the House, but there is a great majority of constituents in my riding of Prince George—Peace River who do not want any of their money going to the Bloc. I am sorry, but not very many Canadians wish to support a political party whose sole motivation is to see the separation of Quebec from Canada. No one should be forced to financially support a political ideology which goes against their own, but we soon may have no choice.

Another point I would like to make is in regard to political financing of new political movements in Canada. An important aspect of Canadian democracy involves Canadians working together to create a voice for their concerns in Ottawa. We have seen that happen throughout our history, from the Social Credit Party which is fading into history to the Progressives which joined with the Conservatives to form the Progressive Conservative Party, to even the Canadian Alliance predecessor, the Reform Party of Canada.

All of these organizations were created to better represent Canadians' views on federal issues. The legislation before us today severely hinders the ability of new political parties to acquire the financing necessary to establish themselves. With no votes, a new party is ineligible for the government subsidy, making it very hard for new political movements to take shape.

A new innovation of the Liberal government involves the use of government funds for political purposes. Canadians have never before been witness to such widespread government advertising purporting to show the benefits of the Liberal Party policy. The Liberal government has realized that as an incumbent party it can use taxpayers' hard earned dollars to advance its own political agenda. During the recent parliamentary debate on the Kyoto protocol, Environment Canada used every advertising medium to convince Canadians it was doing the right thing by voting in favour of ratifying the Kyoto protocol.

Recent inquiries made into the cost of the Liberals' advertising campaign came up with a total of $9.7 million, almost $10 million, not used to inform Canadians about government services or to provide better health care to Canadians, but wasted on promoting the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada, I would argue.

What are we dealing with here? The fact is that Bill C-24, I would argue, guarantees a tremendous advantage to the incumbent government, no matter which party that might be.

The idea is that we will have roughly $1.50 for every Canadian who turns out at the polls to vote on election day, which will then go to political parties based upon the party for which they vote. I would call Bill C-24 a new Liberal head tax. That is what we are talking about. Every Canadian voter who turns out to vote will be taxed $1.50. That tax will go to support a political party and, as I have said, a political party that he or she may not wish to support, whether it is the Bloc or the Canadian Alliance. Certainly a lot of people show up at the polls and do not vote for the Canadian Alliance, why, I have no idea, and I am sure they do not want to see their money support the Canadian Alliance. That is the reality.

I say shame on the government and shame on the Prime Minister for trying to bring in, as part of his so-called legacy, this new Liberal head tax.

Furthermore, Canada is currently experiencing the highest level of voter apathy since Confederation. Voter turnouts have been steadily dropping in the last three elections. I have done some research on this. During the 36 general elections since 1867 and up to the 2000 election, an average of approximately 73% of registered electors voted. Turnout has ranged from a low of 62.9% at the time of the June 1896 election to a high of 79% in three successive general elections between 1958 and 1963. More recently in our history it was averaging about 75%, until 1993, and it has been steadily dropping since then. In the November 2000 election it even beat the all time low. About 61% of Canadians bothered to turn out to vote.

I would suggest that the new Liberal head tax of $1.50 will provide yet another deterrent or disincentive for Canadians to go out to vote. They will say they do not really know why they want to vote anyway. By their action of voting, $1.50 will be taken in taxes to go to some political party. It might go to the political party beside which they marked their X, but it might not. The $1.50 will just go to a political party.

I think there are enough reasons for Canadians to be apathetic and to be cynical about our political process without putting a $1.50 head tax on everyone who votes. It will provide quite a discouragement.

I want to refer briefly to the remarks made by the Prime Minister only yesterday when he introduced Bill C-24. He gave quite a long speech, something that he does not normally do in this place. It was noted that for him to speak to it in the Chamber obviously this is something that he feels quite strongly about.

Specifically, in the latter part of his remarks he said, “Public skepticism is increasing...A lot of people have lost faith in our democratic institutions”. Further on, he said, “This legislation will pass...”.

By tying those three remarks together, we can see a bit of the problem. There was the Prime Minister standing up on the first day of debate on a piece of legislation and saying unequivocally that this legislation, Bill C-24, will pass. He referred to public skepticism increasing in our country. Why is that? I would suggest that he need only look at his own remarks. When he as Prime Minister states on the very first day of debate that this legislation is going to pass, it makes a farce out of democracy.

Why are Canadians staying home? Why are Canadians checking out of the democratic process, not taking out memberships in political parties and not starting new political movements? Because they do not believe that this is democracy. They do not believe that Parliament operates democratically, because whatever one man says goes. If he decides that this bill will pass it will pass, because he has the power to keep his backbenchers, his majority, in line, through either threats or inducements. He has the power to ensure that the legislation passes.

That is why we continually see amendments defeated after the hard work on the part of all members, even the Liberal backbenchers, and any members of the four opposition parties who work hard to try to critique legislation, improve it and bring forward amendments. The minister of the particular department that is sponsoring the bill then just decides that he is going to have all his colleagues stand up, so he goes to the Prime Minister and the whip of the party and the government defeats the amendments. It does not matter whether they are good or bad; it is just that the amendments are not the government's, not the department's, not the minister's, so the government defeats them.

That is why Canadians are checking out of the political process in Canada. That is why Canadians feel they are disenfranchised.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that nine years of Liberal political scandals and repeated allegations of influence peddling and conflict of interest have taken their toll as well. Generous donors to the Liberal Party coffers are often found at the centre of many government spending controversies, such as Shawinigate and the RCMP investigation of the public works sponsorship program, the now infamous advertising programs.

The outright ban of corporate donations to federal political parties will appear to some to clean up the mess the Liberal government is in right now, but it will not fix the problem. With no corporate or union donations, political organizations would need some sort of compensation. But what form it should take is up for debate. I suggest that it should be up for debate, that we should not have the Prime Minister stand up and say this will pass.

Perhaps a funding system linked to financial donations would be more appropriate. Either way, if we are to proceed with any public funding model we need to ensure that the Canadian taxpayers, who ultimately will foot the bill, are ultimately protected and, more important, consulted.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow the member for Palliser. I was particularly interested when he was speaking about his intimate knowledge of horse racing. That would suggest to me that he is not a member who would parade his piety before the House. Unfortunately, sometimes his party does.

Hearing him refer to the bill of 1972-74 and the role of the hon. David Lewis, I must add that I had the privilege of serving on that committee at that time and, not to make too much of a point of it, one of the amendments that we were able to get adopted despite rigorous opposition from the NDP was an amendment which would have covered contributions by governments to political parties. The reason the NDP was so opposed to that amendment was that it was then briefly in government in the province of British Columbia. But sanity prevailed and the bill survived.

My caucus and I support the principle of campaign finance reform. We agree that there is an urgent need to modernize the rules. However, we believe that the bill, Bill C-24, may well create as many problems as it purports to solve.

I know the debate at this stage is on the amendment and let me be clear about the amendment. It asks the House to decline to give second reading to the bill; in other words, to kill the bill and stop reform. That is a very interesting position to be taken by a party that was originally elected to the House by embracing principles of reform.

When the Leader of the Opposition spoke he outlined several concerns of detail, consequence, and inadequacy of the drafting of the bill that we share. I think members on all sides of the House are concerned about the implications of what is in the bill and also implications of things that are not. We want to take a very close look at that in committee.

However, the amendment proposed by the Canadian Alliance would kill the bill and that would be wrong. What Parliament should do is improve the legislation that is here. Consequently, we will be voting against the Canadian Alliance amendment.

I find it strange that a party that was so proudly populace in its origins would defend a status quo which better serves the interests of the National Citizens' Coalition than it does the interests of free democracy.

Everyone knows the bill was introduced in haste and with a hidden agenda. Had the Prime Minister believed in the principle of party finance reform, he would have consulted broadly and acted long ago, acted early enough that the new rules would have applied to him too and not just to others. What we have here today is one more instance of the Prime Minister lunging after a legacy as he leaves his position in public life. In fact, his legacy in Canadian public life is the double standard and this is just another example.

I was struck that the Prime Minister began his remarks by attacking the system, not in this country but in the United States. There is almost a pathological anti-Americanism about the Prime Minister that is particularly inappropriate at this time.

We have a bill that offers a chance for reforms the country needs. Our task now is to make this careless bill significantly better. Canadians are understandably concerned about the role of money in politics.

Last Friday, the public works minister revealed that the RCMP would widen its investigation into Groupaction and related cases. The government tries to blame these events on public servants, although no one believes that public servants would have acted without clear direction from political ministers.

If we were truly interested in the good reputation of politics, the House would find a way to hold those ministers to account. What is at issue here is that the Groupaction scandals are a tip of the iceberg of impropriety which accumulates when political influence and political favours are for sale. There has been a pattern of abuse starting in the government with Shawinigate, leading to resignations, cabinet shuffles, and appointments that are an abuse of our diplomatic service. In all cases the core issue has been the relationship between the public official and backroom financial supporters.

Of course, not all public officials are susceptible to this kind of influence, but the system is weak on two levels. First, it is too open to temptation and, second, these days, perception is an important part of politics. Canadians believe that money can influence the course of events. Even without an experienced minister, like the Minister of Canadian Heritage, saying that money held up the Kyoto accord.

Solutions are twofold. We can legislate with respect to donors and contribution amounts, and we can legislate how these amounts are spent and publicly disclosed.

When I responded to the government House leader's statement introducing the bill I noted that my colleagues and I would be taking a very close look at the details. It is a good thing that we did. It is always the case that the devil is in the details, but there are a number of concerns in the bill, many enumerated already in the early moments of this debate.

What I hope is that all members of the House will be free to consider seriously the weaknesses of the bill and will be free to improve it. The worst thing that would happen in the name of parliamentary reform would be if legislation were rushed in, have party whips imposed upon it, and there would be an inability on the part of the House to build on reforms that would be more effective than are in the present bill.

Let me deal with four serious weaknesses in the proposal as we see it that were introduced by the government House leader and by the Prime Minister today.

The first weakness concerns the regulatory burden on parties and local riding associations. That regulatory burden is simply impossible to bear. These provisions have the odour of regulations written by people who have never personally participated in political campaigns and may not even recognize what babies they are throwing out with the bathwater. I doubt that any party is strong enough in all 301 constituencies in the country to file the reports to Elections Canada that this new bill would require.

The second is through a question, why ban corporate and union donations to parties outright? Why not, instead, tighten disclosure rules and cap corporate and union donations, possibly at the same level as those allowed for individuals? That would ensure transparency and accountability, but it would maintain the freedom of organizations to support the political party of their choice.

During my party's annual meeting in August, we proposed substantial improvements to the system's transparency. We proposed that parties disclose their incomes every quarter, like any other business in Canada, that contributions received by riding associations be included in these quarterly reports and that the internal party leadership races be subject to more or less the same rules as political parties in general.

Third, the government is introducing rules governing political activity at the national level through the national party, and at the local levels through the riding associations, but most parties have regional conglomerations of riding associations, youth associations, campus clubs, women's associations and other such groups that are neither the main party nor a riding association. On all of these, Bill C-24 is virtually silent. The government therefore is either creating a number of loopholes or it is creating a bureaucratic and regulatory nightmare for those who will be responsible for monitoring and enforcing such provisions.

Fourth, the political parties would get an allowance to compensate for losing the financial support of businesses and unions. However, internal leadership races would be subject to different rules.

Members of this House simply have to consider how parties would conduct leadership races. We cannot pretend they are unimportant. This Government of Canada has been stopped in its tracks by a leadership race in its own ranks, a race that is being decided not by a healthy competition among contending candidates but by the fact that one has been able to accumulate immense amounts of money and consequently has an unfair advantage. This is public business. It is a matter of public interest. We in the House have to find some way to look at the conduct of leadership races.

There is no question that the means of financing political parties needs drastic reform. I have spoken in the House, as others have, of the influence of big money. That danger exists in fact and, as important, and we would be fools to ignore it, it exists in perception. There is a very strong sense among ordinary Canadians that the political system, the party system, does not merit their confidence or support because it is controlled by powerful interests.

But I want to make another case. There has been another growing and significant change in our system that has made reform of party financing more urgent: the growth over time and the power of special interest groups. Special interests have always been part of politics, always a legitimate part, from labour unions to business to organizations mobilized to fight a particular cause. But in an earlier time, when the present system of party financing took root, the influence of special interests was balanced and often overweighed by a powerful sense of the common interest.

Many individuals and organizations that contributed to political parties invested in a democratic system. They demanded accountability. They wanted to be able to chose between the parties. They thought that one candidate or another had a good chance of making a contribution to public life. They knew that all this would cost money and their donations were motivated in part by the feeling that they were doing their civic duty.

That of course was not the whole story. There have always been interests and individuals who sought to buy influence for themselves or for their views, but when the present system was built, one of its foundations was a sense of a public interest that was more important than private interests.

That balance has changed. Our political system has changed. The weight of private interests has grown. The sense of public interest has declined. That is why the lobbying industry, which virtually did not exist in Canada 30 years ago, is so powerful today. The reality now is that in this capital city good lobbyists have much more influence than good members of Parliament.

That raises a very serious question for the Canadian political system. Special interests, by definition, fracture community. They put particular interests ahead of the whole.

Historically in Canada, two institutions performed the function of knitting together different claims and putting the public interest first. Government itself was one of those institutions. The other was political parties, particularly political parties that were national in their reach and in their ambition.

It is not healthy for the public interest to have the role of parties decline and the role of lobbyists and special interests fill the vacuum. That is a large issue of which this question of party funding is one important element, because the present situation allows the enfeeblement of political parties. It makes it much more difficult for them to perform their task of drawing together the interests of the whole community.

These reforms outlined here today would allow us to make a step in the direction of reasserting the public interest. These issues are central to the health of our democracy. It is clear that the status quo does not work. It invites very real cynicism in the country. The Minister of Canadian Heritage testified to that effect the other day when she said that financial considerations and the interests of contributors held up the timetable on Kyoto. There is no doubt that the present system invites abuse.

This bill is only a beginning. It is hasty. It was introduced without adequate consultation. It is incomplete. It is badly drafted. It needs substantial amendment. However, that is the business of this House. My party and I will support the bill at this reading and encourage the widest possible opportunity for members of all parties in the House to improve it in committee and elsewhere by considering and debating amendments.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could help my colleague from Brandon--Souris as to why it is not in there. Obviously being on the opposite side of the floor from the government, I cannot really answer. I think it is an omission. Perhaps, with the goodwill of the government that is introducing the bill, it is something that we can deal with.

I firmly believe it should be in the bill. Otherwise I think this will be open to all kinds of shenanigans about how to get around the law. Some might say that if it is only $1,000 surely there must be some way to funnel money in the back door. I think the best way to deal with it would be for the political parties that have these backbenchers or cabinet ministers, or whoever it is who has these trust funds, to say to them very clearly, directly and distinctly, “Get rid of them because they have no place, and as we are amending the law with Bill C-24, let us do away with them”.

As I said before, take the $246,000 that is apparently in one member's trust account and donate it to a university, hospital or charity of his choice, but let us get rid of it now.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be sharing my time this evening but I am pleased to be the lead speaker for New Democratic Party.

I gather that we are speaking to the amendment to Bill C-24, that the House decline to give second reading to the bill, which was introduced by the Canadian Alliance. We will be voting against the amendment.

I would like to make a small prediction. Like the pensions for members of Parliament, the Canadian Alliance will vote against and then quietly accept the public largess that will follow.

Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, is highly complex legislation with many technical changes because the amendments to the Canada Elections Act, instead of being a complete code within themselves, are amendments and this adds to the complexity of it.

Basically, the bill before us today, as we have heard from the Prime Minister, is being distributed to us as a way to remove big money from the political process. We in the New Democratic Party support the bill in principle. We support the idea of it. We had a convention last month in Toronto and passed a resolution similar to what is being proposed today.

I note in passing that in the minority government period of 1972-74, the New Democratic Party leader of the day, David Lewis, secured the passage of the Election Expenses Act which set, for the first time, spending limits on national and district campaigns and expanded public access to the source and amounts of contributions of all political parties. That was a very good beginning. We have not had very much in the quarter century or almost 30 years since then. However the bill does build on the work of David Lewis and that minority Parliament back in the 1972-74 period.

We start from the premise that the only people who should be allowed to contribute to political parties are those who are actually eligible to vote at election time. That would exclude organizations, corporations and trade unions. We think that is a good, fundamental way in which to begin.

As the House knows, currently political contributions are allowed unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, trade unions and other organizations and, as I said, with no limit on the amount of money that can be contributed.

Because of that, we have the perception that money buys status and influence, that money talks, as the Prime Minister himself said. Companies give thousands of dollars, as we have noted, and tend to give dollars to parties that are likely to win the election or are up for re-election. Therein lies some of the problems that we have witnessed in this Parliament and some of the things that need to be redressed and fixed.

The heritage minister herself has indicated that the ratification of the Kyoto protocol was delayed by the government because of the lobby from big businesses to delay and frustrate the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

With the bill that is before us today, I think it will reduce, if not eliminate, those kinds of peculiarities and problems. Bill C-24 requires that only individuals can contribute to political parties. They can make financial contributions to registered parties, to constituency associations, to leadership candidates and nomination contestants. It is capped at $10,000 in total to a registered party, its electoral district association, candidate and nomination contestants.

I want to stop here to say that the $10,000 should be a total aggregate amount of money. It should not be possible for a wealthy individual to give $10,000 per annum to all five of the parties that have status in the House, plus the other registered parties, even if the individual has the wherewithal to do that. That certainly does not remove the perception of big money and influencing politics.

We will be looking for an amendment that would cap that at $10,000 as the total amount of money if the individual wishes to contribute to more than one political party, but certainly not $10,000 to all.

The bill would prohibit corporations, trade unions and associations from donating money to any political party or leadership candidate. They may, however, contribute to a maximum of $1,000 collectively to a party's candidate, nomination contestants and constituency associations. I think this is a bit of a sop to perhaps the government backbenchers who have been concerned that they would not be able to raise any money from an organization, a small business or a trade union that is in their riding.

On balance, we will not raise much objection but when we begin to make changes, even modifications, along this line it does open up the possibility of finding more loopholes. On balance, I would prefer that this were not in the legislation but we will not object beyond that.

We are pleased to take part in the debate because we know that Canadians want a real debate in the financing of political parties. We know that Canadians overwhelmingly want government and political parties to clean up their act in this money buying spree that we have seen, particularly on the government side last year.

As I indicated, the New Democratic Party has long called for removing big money. We certainly support the bill in principle but we do have specific amendments and, as is often said, the devil is in the details. We will be proposing important amendments to the committee but we do support the bill in principle.

It is worth noting, from our perspective, that about 60% of the donations made to the New Democratic Party do come from individual donors, people who give $10, $20, $30, $50 or $100 to our party and to our candidates. That situation stands in stark contrast to what the Liberal Party has enjoyed in recent years: 60% of its donations come from the business community and only 32% from individuals.

Our political enemies always take every opportunity to point out that the New Democratic Party is overwhelmingly supported by the trade union movement. We are proud of the special and unique partnership with the labour movement. That was how the New Democratic Party was founded back in the early 1960s. We are and remain full partners with the labour movement, and, yes, unions do support us, but to a far lesser extent than most people believe. About 30% of our donations come from the trade union movement but the overwhelming amount, 60%, comes from individual donors.

The legislation would allow individuals to donate $10,000 a year to any party. Individuals could donate in multiples of $10,000. For example, one wealthy individual could give $10,000 to each of the five parties in the House. We believe that is far too high, and that donations of that magnitude could still buy considerable influence. It flies in the face of removing the perception of big money influencing politics. We think that even the $10,000 level is too high. I heard the rationale from the Prime Minister. He said that $10,000 was about what $3,000 was worth back in the 1970s when René Lévesque brought this legislation to Quebec. That is a fair point but it still strikes me that it is a large amount of money.

Furthermore, the limit, whatever it will be, should be the total amount that can be donated to all parties in aggregate, not the amount that can be donated to each party. If we say that we are going to get big money out of politics, then let us not fool around. Let us actually do it.

The bill prohibits contributions to political parties from corporations, unions or associations. As a minor exception, it proposes permitting such organizations to contribute $1,000 annually to the aggregate of candidates' local associations and nomination contestants of a registered party. In other words, all contributions from corporations, unions and other associations are combined under the $1,000 limit.

We are checking on this and it may not prove to be a valid concern, but we wonder whether a trade union with many locals will be considered as one unit no matter how many locals it has, as compared to perhaps an automobile dealership that may be considered as a separate entity, with each of those dealerships in the Ford Motor Company, let us say, being able to donate $1,000.

We want to make sure of this in the legislation. We will be asking some questions to ensure that there is a level playing field, that everybody is operating on the same level and that we are not treating unions and corporations differently just because they are set up differently under the various acts.

Trust funds were mentioned earlier in the debate. We know or are aware of some members of the government side who have amassed pretty impressive trust funds, upwards of a quarter of a million dollars. It is not entirely clear to us how the legislation is going to impact on those trust funds.

It seems that while this legislation will not in any way prohibit the trust funds, the intent is that the people who control the funds will be restricted to the $1,000 maximum annual donation to a candidate's riding association or candidate for nomination.

We fear that there will be an enormous temptation for members of Parliament with these trust funds to find ways to slip money over and above the annual maximum into their own good political work and campaigns. We firmly believe that there is no place for trust funds in politics. We know that there are some political parties in the House that do not allow candidates to amass or to begin a trust fund. I would appeal to the members opposite on the government side to take the steps necessary to see that these funds are dismantled now.

This would be a good time to dismantle trust funds when we are changing the Canada Elections Act and putting strict limits on donations. Let us get rid of these trust funds. The Prime Minister makes a good point: if we want them to be donated to universities, hospitals or other good works, let us do that. However, let us get trust funds out of the Canadian political system.

Another area is the area of third parties. This is not really addressed in the legislation. We know that third party advertising has had an enormous impact on politics and elections in other countries, particularly in the United States with all of the so-called soft money that goes into advertising there. Those of us who were around in 1988 also remember the famous free trade election and the barrage of third party advertising to support the free trade agreement with the United States.

It could be argued, because it was a very close election, that the third party advertising played a disproportionate role in the outcome and may have thwarted the democratic will of the majority of Canadians. Of course, proportional representation would have helped a lot too, because we will recall that the government of Mr. Mulroney was returned with about 42% of the popular vote while the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party had a combined vote of about 58%. However, because of our first past the post rules, the Conservative Party had an overwhelming majority. A combination of the lack of proportional representation plus third party advertising did contribute heavily to the outcome of that election.

If the government truly wants to remove the perception that big money rules politics, then I think it is imperative to limit the amount of money that third parties can spend during elections and on politics generally. Yes, I am thinking of the National Citizens' Coalition, which the leader of the official opposition mentioned earlier, and of other organizations with deep pockets and not much accountability.

The current election act limits expenditures by third parties, but several elections back, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the National Citizens' Coalition. Unlike the leader of the official opposition, I am pleased that the federal government is appealing that ruling. The limits on third party advertising have effectively been ignored heretofore as a result of that court ruling.

As an aside, let me say that I think it will be more difficult for the Judge Muldoons of the world to argue in favour of no limits on third party advertising when the political parties themselves pass this piece of legislation and restrict themselves, not only to the amounts of money they can accept but from whom they can accept that money. Not being a lawyer, I obviously do not know, but that is my faint prediction when it comes to third party advertising. I am glad the government is appealing that decision.

The concern is that Bill C-24 does not deal adequately with third party expenditures. Its intent is to remove the influence of big money from politics and that will be severely undercut if third parties are free and able to spend whatever they want.

Once this legislation comes into effect, it will confine political parties to accepting only individual contributions. At the same time, if third parties can continue to raise unlimited amounts of money at election time when candidates and parties are bound by the new restrictions, then we will simply be making a travesty out of the commitment to remove big money from politics.

I will briefly talk about public funding for parties between elections and at election time. It is premised in the bill that some of that money has to be replaced. If we do not allow corporations, trade unions and other organizations to donate, then we have to deal with that. Bill C-24 does so by proposing that $1.50 per vote go to each party, based on the previous election. Some people say that is handicapping the outcome of the last election. In a horse race, weights are usually put on the favourite to slow that horse down, but as has been pointed out, about $7.8 million will go to the governing party under this proposal based on the results of the last election. Lower amounts will go to the five political parties. I think that we are prepared to accept that arrangement and, as an aside, to assure the Liberals and anyone else that in the next election the New Democratic Party will be receiving many more votes than it did in the November 2000 election.

I do note that there is no provision in this legislation to index these publicly funded amounts, so they will decrease over time. It is worth noting that contributions from individuals, corporations and unions are indexed on the $1,000 side. We believe that public funding should be looked at and considered for indexation as well.

In conclusion, the New Democratic Party does support the legislation in principle. Given the hostile comments we have heard this afternoon from the official opposition and what we have not heard from some members on the Liberal backbench, perhaps the Prime Minister is going to need all the support he can muster. However, we will be putting forward amendments because there are flaws in this piece of legislation and we look forward to the debate when we get to committee stage.

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southwest, AB]

The government House leader asks what is the name of the case? It is the Harper case, the most recent one, and we will get to that.

It is interesting how little problem the government has talking about this particular case or about cases where it is violating the freedom of expression of citizens yet it clams up when it comes to covering up GST fraud or soft penalties for terrorists.

I say once again, the courts declared each one of these attempts a violation of freedom of expression under the charter of rights and not something that constituted a reasonable limit on such freedoms in a free and democratic society.

The most recent attempt occurred when the Elections Act was amended in the year 2000, on the eve of the last general election. This past November the Alberta court of appeal upheld the initial trial decision striking down and rendering these provisions unconstitutional. As has been noted, this particular litigation was initiated by the National Citizens' Coalition at the time when I served as its president.

Rather than accepting this clear statement of the highest court of Alberta and subsequent lower courts, the federal government has decided to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada at further taxpayer expense. In addition, and despite the clear court ruling--and frankly Elections Canada should hang its head in shame--it is pursuing prosecution of the NCC, a voluntary citizens' organization, for alleged violation of the act in Ontario during the 2000 general election under provisions that have already been declared unconstitutional by senior courts in the country. It is absolutely disgraceful.

To put this all in context, the desire of the government to regulate the participation of ordinary Canadians in the political process is reflected in both its zeal to enforce such limits on independent groups and in this bill by its attempt to over regulate such activity by local riding associations and nomination contestants. The government seems to want to remove the voluntary element from the electoral process and replace it with state regulation, augmented by favouring established parties through massive increases in direct public subsidies.

To conclude, in addition to this government trying to regulate the participation of ordinary Canadians in the political process, this bill will cause troubling changes to the source of contributions to political parties, shifting it from the voluntary act of free citizens to a tax levied on all taxpayers.

In a democratic society, it is unfair for shareholders and unionized workers to contribute to a political party without their consent. However, it is even worse to take this money from taxpayers without their permission.

Let us be clear. We could support, in principle, the provisions of this bill to limit corporate and union contributions. What we are against is replacing corporate and union contributions with forced subsidies from taxpayers. Political parties should learn to depend mostly on contributions from their members.

Frankly, we find it outrageous that the Liberals are describing this bill as a democratic reform. There is nothing democratic about forcing people to give money without their consent. Furthermore, many of these so-called reforms to strengthen our democracy have the exact opposite effect.

This legislation will discourage voluntary initiatives at the local level, creating an even wider gap between voters and politicians, discouraging people from becoming a member of a political party and preserving the status quo.

In summary, in addition to the government's attempt to over regulate the participation of ordinary citizens in the political process, the bill represents a disturbing shift in the sources of political party contributions from voluntary acts of free citizens to mandatory imposition on all taxpayers.

If we look at the provisions of the bill, there can be no doubt. This is a bill designed by the Liberal Party, of the Liberal Party, and for the Liberal Party. For this reason the Canadian Alliance cannot support Bill C-24 in its current form.

Let me conclude by moving the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word “that” with the following:

This House decline to give second reading to Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, because the bill shifts the sources of contributions to political parties from the voluntary actions of people and organizations to a mandatory imposition on all taxpayers, making political parties more dependent upon the state and less responsive to society.

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I started out today with mere skepticism about what the Prime Minister was up to but after listening to his speech, I guess my skepticism can only rise. For a man who claims there is no problem at all with corruption and undue influence in his government, he is sure making an awfully big deal about fixing it. I hope members caught some of the ironies in that.

There was criticism of the American system of electing senators. I remind the Prime Minister that he is opposed to electing senators at all in this country.

He was praising democratic political parties and keeping them open, while the aspirant to his own leadership restricts membership sales in his own political party.

This is a party that talks about cleaning up the nomination process, making it more open for nominations and for elections, when the Prime Minister regularly appoints candidates in winnable ridings for his party.

The biggest hypocrisy today is to talk about democracy and the importance of this institution, when only a half an hour ago the Prime Minister and his successor stood in the House to vote against the requirement that they come here and get a mandate for war, that they face this House before sending our soldiers to face war.

The Canadian Alliance, unlike the Liberal Party, has long been a proponent of real democratic reform. We have proposed over the years substantial reforms to how we do business in the House.

Our previous House leader, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, and the member for Fraser Valley before him, tabled documents “Building Trust” and “Building Trust II” that have made important proposals for how we can actually bring democracy to the House of Commons.

Of course our party has been at the forefront for a very long time in urging reform of the Senate, and not just elections, but comprehensive reform to make it a democratic and effective institution. We have stood to bring about in this country an effective system of direct democracy to enhance the voice of average Canadians, not once every four years, but all the time.

Obviously with this kind of history, our party is very interested in real measures that would avoid or lessen undue influence from the large donations of corporations, unions, associations or individuals. It is obviously something that we would be interested in.

However, by its very structure, Bill C-24, the campaign finance reform legislation proposed by the government, while it hints at some improvements, in the end it fails to be the type of positive reform legislation that we can support. It does not, and if we are realistic, it cannot end corruption or inappropriate influence in government. Our fear is that it will serve to weaken an already fragile democratic framework.

First, to be frank, the appearance of this legislation at this time is too driven by internal Liberal politics and needs: the need of the Prime Minister to whitewash various scandals from his record before he retires; the need to deal with his leadership rival within the Liberal Party; and, as stated by the Prime Minister's own principal adviser to his caucus, the need to deal with the bank debts of the Liberal Party itself.

When the Liberal public relations rhetoric is set aside, the true nature of the bill is simply the replacement by the government of its addiction to large business and union donations with an addiction to taxpayer funding.

Ultimately, like so much Liberal political reform legislation, it really is about stopping participation. The bill is really about simply who cannot do what, when they cannot do it, and why they should not be able to do it. It is not in any way, shape or form about encouraging or replacing participation in the political process.

The bill as a consequence will simply require hardworking Canadians to pay for political parties they do not necessarily support.

Fundamentally, it is not democratic for a supporter of the NDP to be forced to back the Canadian Alliance or for a supporter of the Alliance to be forced to back the Liberals. Quite frankly the bill is simply an autocratic solution to a democratic problem.

First, the bill represents a further progression of the public subsidization of political parties. The Prime Minister praises that as a good thing in and of itself, and that is the problem with the Liberal Party. It is a problem of the Liberal Party not just in this, it is the problem of the Liberal Party when it comes to running the economy.

Political parties, like markets, should be responsible to the people who need them and want them, not operate on subsidies from people who do not.

Currently, the public may or may not be aware, that political parties are already very heavily subsidized by taxpayers. In the first place donations to political parties are subsidized, first, by a tax credit system that credits up to 75% of the donation. Then, when candidates and political parties actually spend the money, they are reimbursed for that electoral spending by taxpayers based on minimal electoral performance; for candidates up to 50% of eligible expenditures and for parties, 22.5% of eligible expenditures.

To give some idea of the scale of this, for 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 for their eligible election expenses. Currently, by this one element alone, taxpayers already subsidize slightly less than 40% of the funding of parties in Canada.

Proposals in the legislation would push that direct subsidization, leaving aside tax credits, to beyond 70%. The legislation would increase taxpayer reimbursement to political parties. The tax credit program is enhanced but more disturbing, so are expense rebates. The percentage of eligible expenditures that is to be refundable to parties has been more than doubled to 50%. The authorized limit of such expenditures has been raised to 70¢ of each registered voter from 62¢. As well, the threshold for receiving the rebates has been lowered for candidates.

Finally, the cost of polling, which is a significant cost, will now count as an eligible expense. Far worse, because that is only the beginning, on top of this enrichment of the current reimbursements for parties, there is now to be a yearly allowance paid to each party which obtains minimal shares of the popular vote. Starting in 2004, each party will be allotted a share of $1.50 times the total number of ballots cast in the last election based on the percentage of the votes they received in the last election.

Obviously, the biggest beneficiary is the Liberals and they will benefit regardless of how people's views of them may change in their performance as a governing party. Admittedly, the Canadian Alliance stands to benefit financially from the allowance. We will benefit especially because this party does not rely heavily on donations from corporations, unions and other large donors. However the principal beneficiary will be the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Liberals could not exist without an alternative source of funding, guaranteed taxpayer funding, if corporate donations were severally limited. Whereas the Canadian Alliance has shown it can and would continue to survive.

For instance, in 2001, the Liberals received donations from fewer than 5,000 individuals which comprised only 19% of their total fundraising. That same year nearly 50,000 individuals contributed to the Canadian Alliance and that made up over 61% of our funding.

It is obvious that the bill serves simply for the Liberals to replace their heavy reliance on corporate donations in particular and union donations, not with donations from the CEOs and union bosses who made those contributions, with subsidies from taxpayers. In fact, the Liberals have structured the bill so that they will actually receive a net benefit from the new rules.

In 2004 the Liberals stand to receive almost $8 million worth of taxpayer money which will replace about $6.5 million they received from corporations, unions and associations, not all of which I should add, will be lost.

In a democracy it is simply wrong to force hard-working Canadians to support political parties. It should be the voters right to choose which parties they support in any given year.

What is needed for real accountability is some financial link between politicians and the individuals who support them. One way of doing that and one way that does exist in the system is the political tax credit system which the bill enhances. This is one proposal worthy of consideration, but even this proposal deserves close examination in committee. Already small and modest contributions to political parties are much more heavily supported by the state, much more generously than charitable contributions. That is something that should be examined.

It is unfortunate that even here there is a flaw. Donors of only $200 to our system face disclosure under this present system in the requirement. There is no possible undue influence from a donation to a political party or candidate of $200. It is simply unnecessary paperwork and exposes, through publication, the names of donors to solicitors and fundraisers of all kinds, something they should not have to face.

I repeat, the real problem is that by strong-arming hard-working Canadians into paying for political parties, the bill will over time distance an already apathetic public from engaging in the political system and our democratic framework will suffer as a consequence. Voter turnout has been constantly falling. In the 2000 election it was the lowest since Confederation and it has been on a steady decline since the 1980s. This trend can only get worse if the legislation is adopted. No politician in any party can afford to be alienated, distanced or not directly accountable to voters.

This is the problem that really concerns me. It is one thing for the government to come here and at least come clean and say that there have been instances of undue influence in the government or in politics in Canada. However it is not a solution to say that taxpayers will fund us regardless. We cannot replace undue influence with no influence whatsoever from the voters as to how their money is spent.

I would point out that there are ample problems. If we look at the limits set out in the bill, there are already ample problems that require study. The bill sets out severe limits for donations to corporations, unions and associations and it has some limits for individuals. This could help deal with problems of undue influence, but let us look at some of the problems.

For example, under the legislation individuals are allowed to contribute up to $10,000 per year per party, plus an additional $10,000 in any one year to leadership contestants of any one party, plus a further contribution of $10,000 to the election campaigns of independent candidates. It stands to reason that average Canadians cannot afford to contribute anywhere close to these amounts annually to political parties. This is a measure designed specifically to capture wealthy Liberal supporters who in the past donated using corporate or union funds at their disposal.

Unfortunately, there are many loopholes for those who really wish to use this to buy influence. For example, the legislation does not set age restrictions for donations. An individual family could contribute $10,000 per year, per party, times the number of family members. Also, although there is an attempt to prohibit indirect contributions, the restrictions limit those contributions to individuals who have filed nomination papers with the returning officer during a writ period. This still allows for unlimited pre-writ donations to an MP's trust to assist his or her re-election, as pre-writ expenses are not regulated by the act.

It is in any case virtually impossible for police to track and enforce the provisions in the bill, which are intended to prevent corporations, unions and others trying to circumvent such limits. The reality is that as long as the government maintains programs and agencies that pay large amounts of discretionary money to particularly the businesses, programs that pick winners and losers, these limits will do little to restrict those with money who wish or who need to influence government and politicians, whether they do so by the terms of the legislation or whether they do so illegally.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, for the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved that Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to move second reading of a bill that will change the way politics is done in this country, a bill that will address the perception that money talks, that big companies and big unions have too much influence on politics, a bill that will reduce cynicism about politics and politicians, a bill that is tough but fair.

Canadians demand transparency, openness and accountability. They demand it in health care and we delivered last week.

Canadians demand it from their politicians in terms of their fundraising and we are delivering with this bill.

The bill provides for full disclosure of all contributions and expenses over $200 at all levels, not only for national parties and candidates in elections but for riding associations, for nominations, and for leadership candidates.

We are acting on recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, an officer of the Parliament of Canada. These recommendations were the accumulation of a career spent as custodian of the democratic process in Canada, a career that has earned him the respect and gratitude not just of Canadians or of this House but of new and struggling democracies around the world that have sought his advice as they have worked to bring truly democratic and fair elections to their nations. I want to pay tribute to Mr. Kingsley and I would like to thank him for his excellent work.

With these new rules, there will be no more black holes for campaign contributions and no more allowing unreceipted money and unaccounted expenses.

We only have to look south of the border to see how money impacts on politics, the many millions that are raised for individual Senate seats and the huge contributions to political action committees. In the United States, the fitness of a candidate for office is judged first on his or her ability to raise huge sums of money, rather than on his or her brains or ability to lead. They call it the money primary. It takes place in the shadows long before an idea is expressed, before a speech is given, before a vote is cast. We do not want to see this in Canada.

The bill will ensure that we have a very different system, a typical Canadian new institution, a system that will be a model for other democracies.

Many years ago, we in Canada placed limits on campaign spending. This bill places limits on fundraising. Limits on contributions to political parties. Limits for candidates. Limits for nominations. Limits for leaderships. And it imposes full disclosure.

I was not always in agreement with René Lévesque on everything. But there is no doubt that the party financing legislation he passed in Quebec has served as a model for democracy. It has worked well. This bill builds on that model and corrects some of its flaws.

Contributions from individuals will be limited to a maximum of $10,000 to a political party per year. This amount is approximately equivalent in current dollars to the $3,000 of the Quebec legislation of 1977.

This bill is in the same vein as legislation passed a few years ago in Manitoba to prohibit corporate and union contributions to political parties' election funds.

With a very limited exception, which I will explain in a moment, businesses and trade unions will be prohibited from contributing to political parties or candidates or leaderships or nominations.

We all know there is a perception that corporate and union contributions buy influence. I do not believe that this is true. And I do not believe that any member of this House feels that he or she has been improperly influenced.

But, and this is very important, there is something that we should all recognize. All of us in this House have been guilty at one time or another of throwing out the accusation that corporate or union contributions influence our opponents. Often we have done so without really thinking, and the media are no better.

None of this is good for the political process or democracy. This bill addresses this issue head on. I firmly believe that the elimination of contributions to political parties by business and trade unions will greatly improve the political culture in Canada.

Members of Parliament argued that they should not be precluded from taking very small contributions from local businesses in their ridings. In fact, in the last election, the average such contribution was $450. Clearly such contributions cannot be seen to be influencing decisions.

Therefore the bill allows businesses and trade unions to contribute a maximum of $1,000 a year to a candidate or a riding association, but not to a national party. This is, I believe, an acceptable compromise, but anything more would gravely diminish the purpose of this bill.

A thousand dollars a year over a four-year period adds up to $4,000. No business should be able to contribute more than that to a political party through a riding association. Otherwise we would be recreating at the riding level what we are attempting to eliminate at the national.

Indeed, one of the great sources of frustration to those who are working for a true reform of political party financing is the existence of loopholes that allow people to get around the law. The necessity to plug those loopholes right from the start with this bill, and thus to avoid the public cynicism to which they give rise, is the justification for the severity of this bill we have before us.

Political parties are essential to the democratic process. We all know that in this House. We all know that they need money to operate. That too is essential in a democracy.

The principle of public funding has been long established in Canada through tax credits for individual contributions to political parties and through rebates to parties and candidates for a proportion of election expenses.

To make up for the loss of corporate and union contributions, this bill substantially increases public financing of the political process. The maximum tax credit for individual contributions is raised from $200 to $400. National party rebates for election expenses will be raised from 22.5% to 50%.

Candidates themselves receive a rebate of 50% if they have more than 15% of the vote. The bill reduces the threshold to 10%. Each political party will receive $1.50 per vote received in the last general election.

The increase in the individual tax credit, the increase in the rebate and the direct subsidy to the party will make up for the loss of corporate and trade union contributions and it will do so through public financing, the only way to remove the perception that big money influences decisions of government. We can do this at a cost of about 65¢ per Canadian in non-election years and a bit more than $1 per Canadian in an election year. This is a very small price to pay for helping to improve our democracy. It is a very good investment of public funds.

Some have suggested that the subsidy to a political party means that an individual's tax dollars may go to a party that he or she disagrees with. The reality is that the $1.50 a year goes to the party that person voted for in the previous election.

If someone changes his or her mind after an election, if someone realizes he or she made a mistake, for example by voting for the Canadian Alliance, the $1.50 per year still adds up to a total of $6 over the four years. That person can make up for his or her mistake. Everybody makes mistakes. It could happen to somebody who voted Liberal too, but not many because we are still doing quite well.

That person can make up for his or her mistake by making a personal contribution of up to $10,000 a year to the political party of his or her new choice. That person will benefit from the increase in the limit for the maximum tax credit. The argument about the use of tax dollars for a political party the taxpayer does not agree with just does not hold water.

As a result of this bill, elections will be financed almost 90% by the public. This will make Canada a model for democracy. It is something we should all be proud of.

I know some members have concerns about the impact of this bill on the internal workings of political parties. It is important to understand that these are matters that are not for legislation; they are matters for parties to work out. We do not need legislation to regulate the internal workings of political parties.

This is a long bill with a lot of clauses in it. It is possible that there are provisions that have been drafted in a way where there are unintended consequences. I would hope that the committee will propose appropriate amendments. However, the basic principles of the bill are fundamental to the government. By that I mean disclosure and accountability, the banning of corporate and union contributions with the maximum $1,000 exception, the limits on individual contributions and the public financing regime.

Corporations and unions have contributed to political parties out of a spirit of good corporate citizenship. I thank them and all political parties thank them. I would hope that in the future they will take the money that they would have otherwise contributed to political parties, and first they could send it as a gift to the government to pay for the programs. That would be a contribution if they believe in it but if they have reservations and they do not want to do that, they could contribute that money to charities and universities.

Democracy is a living thing. The history of the world teaches us it is a fragile thing as well, to be nurtured, to be encouraged, to be promoted and to be defended.

Philosophers say there is no such thing as a perfect democracy. Of course that is true. Any society is a work in progress. The truest test of a living, growing democracy like Canada is the extent to which our institutions strive to live up to our ideals, for it is in continuing to measure ourselves against our ideals that we reaffirm their power to inspire. I believe that this bill passes that test.

This bill is about making Canada more open. It is about removing barriers for women, for men of religious and ethnic minorities, for the poor and the disadvantaged. Ultimately it is about ensuring that their voices are heard as loudly and clearly as anyone else.

Forty years ago this month I became a candidate for this Parliament. I was elected on April 8, 1963. I have had the honour of having been elected to this body 12 times. I know I speak for every man and woman in this House when I say that on each of those occasions, I have been filled with reverence for the democratic system.

Bill C-24, far from repudiating the system that allowed me and so many others to serve this great country, pays tribute to it by seeking to give it new energy, new vigour and new relevance by passing on to the new generation a democratic tradition not tired or worn, but renewed and alive; not perfect, but better; one that lives up to its name, one of the most beautiful, most fragile, most cherished words in any language: democracy.

As my career draws to a close, this is a very significant occasion for me. I have seen this Parliament evolve, and I see what is going on out there. Public scepticism is increasing. Our system is a very open one. Question period can be seen in every home every day, as is the case for all the exchanges that take place here in the House, and people can also read reports in the press. A lot of people have lost faith in our democratic institutions.

When we see how people in other jurisdictions have to collect millions and millions of dollars—for instance to become a United States senator—and when the public hears talk of hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions, people lose faith. Here we want our institutions to be made in Canada.

One of the things that is very important for us as Canadians is to have a personality that is very different. There is a country south of us which has a very different institution. We have this Parliament that meets every day, where ministers, the Prime Minister and members come together to ask questions. They do not have this there. We have different institutions that have served Canada well, that have given us a great personality.

This legislation will pass and we will be looked upon as a modern society that takes democracy seriously, a country that is very preoccupied with making sure that diversity and unity are very important. We want to give a chance to everybody to come to Parliament and serve the people. Money will not make the difference. It will be the quality of the system.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the rest of this day and then go on with the future agenda.

If the opposition follows through with its offer, as promised during question period, to withdraw its motion today on the strength of the commitment made by the Prime Minister to, on the first day following military deployment should there be one which we all hope of course there would not be, call a votable opposition day that would free up the rest of the day.

Following that, this afternoon we would then deal with Bill C-19. Should there be any time left we would call Bill C-22, although I suspect that there would not be that much time, and perhaps Bill C-19 would take us close to the end.

Tomorrow we shall begin the third reading stage of Bill C-6, the Specific Claims Resolution Act, followed by Bill C-2, an act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon.

Monday next, and Thursday as well, shall be allotted days.

Tuesday morning, we shall be resuming consideration of Bill C-13 on assisted reproduction. After oral question period, we shall begin consideration of Bill C-24 on political financing. Wednesday, we shall resume consideration of any unfinished business, with the possibility of continuing debate on Bill C-24.

Canada Elections Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)