Bill C-364 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act (political financing)

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act regarding the contribution limits and the computation of the fund paid to registered political parties. It also makes a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act as to the eligible amount of a monetary contribution made to a registered party, a registered association or a candidate.

Canada Elections Act

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

moved that Bill C-364, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-364, which I hope will have the support of all the parties in the House.

In the House, we are all elected representatives of the people. We are here to be their voice and make choices that reflect their concerns and values. In a way, we are the incarnation of the will of the people. It is both a privilege and a duty that we must constantly bear in mind.

However, the public has been losing confidence in us over the years. We hear it at the dinner table at home, in conversations at the office, in the media, and at the corner store checkout. Disparaging politicians has become as commonplace as talking about the weather or the ups and downs of the Montreal Canadiens.

The public is losing confidence in us. More often than not, politicians are accused of being corruptible. It is thought that we are not here for the right reasons and that we have personal interests and hidden agendas.

Unfortunately, the public has the impression that politicians can be bought and that our decisions are up for sale. Commentators often call it public cynicism. We hear this expression often. However, the public is not cynical. It has a moral compass. It can tell the difference between right and wrong. We are the ones suspected of being cynical and being guided by our own interests. Everything is a matter of public perception and public confidence.

All of us have a duty to restore public confidence. Without it, the very legitimacy of the House is at risk. We have a responsibility to be upright and to distance ourselves from the appearance of any conflict of interest, patronage, or situation where we could be seen as returning a favour.

I am not reinventing the wheel. These are comments that we have all heard in our respective ridings. We have a duty to remain beyond reproach and to be as pure as the driven snow. To achieve that, we must start by taking meaningful action and examining the way federal political parties are financed.

Giving money to a political party is a profoundly democratic act. Citizens can contribute to a political party because they believe in its ideas, or perhaps its ideals. It is more than just encouragement; it is a political gesture that implies engagement.

When the foundations of political financing are attacked by diverting funds from the objectives, when political financing is used for personal gain, to put something straight into someone's pocket, it is a direct attack on the very foundations of democracy and our responsibilities.

When it comes to political party financing, the more a party plays fast and loose with the rules, the less popular and accessible it becomes and the more dubious it appears. How are people to believe that everyone has an equal voice in a democracy when political parties are filling their coffers by hosting exclusive parties at $1,500 a head? How can we convince people that decisions are being made solely in the public interest?

Middle-class Canadians do not have access to these private $1,500-a-plate dinners with the Prime Minister, for example. Even people interested in politics see a problem with that. As for our respective party supporters, those who believe in us enough to give of their time and come up with $100, $200, $300, or $400 out of their annual budgets, what opinion do you think these people have of politicians when they see them hamming it up with the elites in the hopes of raking in big cheques?

Here is a good example. On May 19, 2016, at a private $1,500-a-plate dinner, the Prime Minister met Shenglin Xian, a businessman who wanted permission from the government to create a bank, Wealth One, catering to Vancouver’s large Chinese community. On July 7, 2016, the government gave the go-ahead to open the bank. Now, 48 hours before the official announcement, the Prime Minister received $70,000 in contributions, all of it in cheques made out for the maximum legal amount of $1,500.

The Prime Minister received $70,000 for his Montreal riding of Papineau, with practically all of the cheques coming from wealthy Chinese-Canadians from the Vancouver area.

This is quite an extraordinary coincidence. It breeds cynicism. By all appearances, the Prime Minister received payback for creating the Wealth One bank.

We may wonder whether it is moral and whether it is a good idea to have lobbyists in such a close relationship with our nation's leader. We can even wonder whether political donations can help fast track certain projects and whether government decisions can be influenced. There is one thing we can be sure of, and that this is legal. Yes, the practice I just described is 100% legal under the current system.

That is how the major parties get financing these days, since public funding for political parties was eliminated. It made sense for the two major political parties in Canada to eliminate public funding. They have excellent contacts in all the big firms, in all the major banks, and in all the corridors of power where the big deals are done. They do not need donations from ordinary people who want to contribute as much as they can because they believe in protecting the environment, they believe in social justice, or they want to create their own country for their nation.

Fierce competition between major donors is good for the major parties. This gives people the impression that power can be bought. It is important to remember that it was Jean Chrétien, a former Liberal prime minister, who brought in public funding for political parties. In the aftermath of the sponsorship scandal, he understood that in politics it is important to maintain an image of absolute integrity, because the people see that as critically important. This Liberal government could learn a thing or two from that.

With public funding, political parties receive stable funding based precisely on the number of votes they obtain. In that respect, public funding is an incentive to vote, because even though voters know that a candidate will not be elected, every vote received will benefit the party that voters support. Everyone can rest assured that they have not wasted their vote and that their vote counts. It is democratic, and above all ethical, and it is particularly healthy for our democratic values.

With public funding, there is no need to court the elite in the hope of a rich payoff. The big fundraisers for major parties, especially the party in power, often have a direct influence on public policy. They have preferred access to members' caucus, cabinet, and the prime minister's office. The lower the contribution ceiling, the less influence fundraisers have, and the less room there is for lobbies, private interests, and the friends of government.

Also, with public financing, all political options, whatever they are, obtain funding based on the number of citizens who support them. This means, as I said earlier, that citizens know that their votes count. They know that they can choose the political party they want, the one that represents their values, rather than having to mark an x beside the name of the least objectionable candidate for Prime Minister, for example. It is unfortunate to be elected by default because our highly cynical electorate voted for the least objectionable choice.

In one fell swoop, this would encourage a diversity of political opinions and allow small parties to be heard, and even better, this could eventually help usher in a new party, which is in itself very healthy and democratic for a society such as ours.

We are not reinventing the wheel; we can essentially bring back what the Liberals left us. If we restored the old rule, the Liberal legacy, the cost of public financing would be insignificant compared to what the current system costs us.

When political party funding is tied to votes, taxpayers understand that a minuscule share of the taxes they pay to finance political parties essentially goes to the party they supported.

Under the current system, when a rich donor gives $1,500 to a political party, he or she receives a tax credit of $650, which we all pay for collectively. A small portion of our taxes goes to fund parties we do not support. By lowering the limit and bringing back public funding, we are restoring the balance between the voter's will and the taxpayer's contribution. A larger share of our taxes goes straight to the party that stands up for our beliefs. That system is far less costly than the current funding model. The cost of the current system is the legitimacy of Canadian democracy.

I therefore ask my colleagues from all parties to spare a thought today for the women and men they represent in the House. They know them well, and they know who they are dealing with and what kind of values they hold.

I ask them to think about what these women and men expect of them. I ask them to honour the founding values of the House in a meaningful way. I ask them to vote in favour of my bill, of restoring public funding to political parties, of probity and honesty among elected officials, of strong political morality, and of freer democratic expression.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Terrebonne for introducing this bill and for his intervention.

At the beginning of his speech, he suggested that all politicians are for sale, because they request contributions.

My question is simple: why is he proposing lowering the contribution limit from $1,500 to $500, instead of eliminating it completely and prohibiting all private fundraising?

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, the goal with that is to achieve consensus, to compromise, because we know there are parties in the House that are bound and determined to keep the current system in place.

Essentially, I think this gets us closer to a more democratic, more grassroots way of doing things. We have also given some thought to how this will affect major federal parties logistically. Unlike us, they have more expenses, so if we tried to make party financing as simple as possible, we would be unlikely to reach a compromise with certain members of the House.

We are also acknowledging the economic reality of party operating costs and simultaneously reducing the likelihood of outside influences by two-thirds, which is a step in the right direction compared to what the situation was before and what it is now.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Terrebonne on his speech and his bill.

I think that any move to clean up politics and reduce the influence of money, the wealthy, and the powerful on the political scene is progress. We will be very honoured to support the member for Terrebonne's bill.

I find it kind of funny that the Bloc Québécois is championing the Liberal legacy today. I hope the Liberals will champion the Liberal legacy too.

Would the member for Terrebonne accept an amendment to his bill such that the per-vote subsidy would be contingent on reaching a minimum threshold of votes provincially or nationally, as in the legislation introduced under Jean Chrétien?

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, what we are proposing is moot, because essentially the part dealing with the limit in question remains untouched and is still currently in effect, as far as reimbursement is concerned. The response is therefore redundant. We are not changing anything. It is already on the books.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Terrebonne.

I am absolutely in favour of this bill. The process for a bill such as this affords me my only opportunity in the House to speak at second reading stage.

It is clear that public funding is the best way to finance political parties. It is also clear that this bill will put in place a system where everyone knows that their vote counts.

I urge my Liberal colleagues to pass the bill, so we can get it to committee. This is the system that was put in place by the right hon. Jean Chrétien. It was removed by Stephen Harper. We were told that it was removed because taxpayer funds should not be going to political parties. There are three ways that taxpayers' funds used to go to political parties. Stephen Harper removed the one that was fair, directed by taxpayers, and required the least amount of public funding.

Does my friend, the member for Terrebonne, have any indication that we will have support within the House, across the aisle, to restore the system put in place by the right hon. Jean Chrétien, even with some amendments that I would want at committee?

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope so. Virtue, good deeds, and good political decisions are not the exclusive domain of a single party. I think that good ideas can come from across the spectrum and that we must draw from what is good and what was good in the past. With regard to the legislation that was passed by the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien, I think that it transcended party lines and was a good measure and a good way to break free from the unfortunate situation with the sponsorship scandal. Today, I cannot speak to the government's intentions, but I know that my colleagues have a great deal of interest in and attachment to democratic values. Regardless where they come from, good ideas and good bills transcend party lines.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The time allowed for questions and comments has expired.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Poverty; the member for Courtenay—Alberni, Indigenous Affairs; the member for Beauport—Limoilou, Government Appointments.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on Bill C-364 to discuss election financing law.

To start with, I will not be supporting this bill. That is not because I do not believe in a stronger role for public financing; I do believe that. It is because the alternative is a stronger role for private financing.

The key question I want to address in our democracy is a complete re-evaluation of political fundraising itself. Is fundraising necessary, and if so, what should it look like? Conventional wisdom is that it is. However, I want us to ask the question honestly and objectively.

Political parties need funds to operate and campaign. That is a given. However, what is a fair way to achieve that funding?

First, parties and riding associations should not have to fundraise in competition with each other. The fundraising should come from the riding, with a share sent to the party in order for it to remain a part of the party, with the specific details left up to each party or riding association to figure out. A party is not a party, after all, without ridings and representatives. The parties themselves are only meant to exist as a vehicle for like-minded members to work together, not as a means for members to become like-minded. That is a discussion for another day.

I disagree with the current fundraising model of 100% private funds, coupled with non-refundable tax credits and expense reimbursements that do not give equal ability to all members of society to participate, which is a fundamental tenet of any democracy. Those who have money can participate and get tax credits. Those who do not have money to participate are not eligible for the tax incentive to do so. Therefore, having less means that each dollar costs less fortunate individuals more in absolute terms, and prohibitively more in relative terms. Once again, those who need are at a disadvantage compared to those who do not, and politicians, with their insatiable need for funds, must necessarily gravitate toward those who have.

Many donors donate because they believe in the cause. However, I think it is naive to believe that all donors do. I am sure most of us have received an angry email or phone call at some point from someone who has given money to either our riding or our party saying, “I am a donor and I am angry.” Personally, I do not take well to this kind of message. I want people to donate because they believe in what we are doing and want us to continue, not in order to tell us what we need to do. If they are angry, I want to know that, not because they are donors but because they are citizens. I want that fact detached from the comment, and I want people who did not donate to express themselves with equal fervour. I am here to represent and work for all of my people to the best of my ability, not just those who supported me or may do so in the future.

I also disagree with the concept of annual per-vote funding, the primary objective of Bill C-364, for the simple reason that how people voted in 2015 may not reflect where they want their financial support to go. At that, it may not be the same in 2016, 2017, 2018, or 2019. If people vote for a Liberal candidate to block a Conservative candidate when they actually support the Green Party, why should the money go to the Liberals and not the Green Party in that circumstance? It does not make sense. If we do have per-vote funding, we should also have a preferential ballot so that the money we assign goes to our first pick, even if we have specified additional choices in order to prevent the unfavourable results that can sometimes come from not voting strategically.

On the other hand, I also do not believe that just because one has registered a political party it is automatically entitled to some funding or an equal level of funding as all the others. It must be tied to that party's actual support in some way. Giving the Rhinoceros Party $18 million simply because it is registered may not necessarily serve the interests of democracy, and providing per-party financing may motivate some people to register political parties for the purpose of simply collecting the money without any actual interest in the electoral process. I think these risks are fairly self-evident.

While I know I am very much in the minority on this, my preferred model for addressing all these concerns is to put a question on the tax returns of Canadians that would go something like this, with the numbers being completely arbitrary for the sake of demonstration here today.

With respect to let us say tax return line number 500, an answer to this section is required for my tax return to be accepted as complete. Therefore, the questions might be, “Question 1, I am entitled to direct $25 to a party registered in my riding or to be held in escrow for an independent candidate to be returned or forfeited if the candidate I name does not register to run in the next election: a) Yes, I would like to exercise this right, or b) No, I do not wish to contribute to any political party or independent candidate at this time.” If we check off no, then we are finished and have met our obligations under this section of the return. If we answer yes, that we do wish to direct $25 to a political party, we have three more questions to answer.

The first question would be, “The party or independent candidate I wish to support in my riding is”, then there would be a blank space or drop-down menu with data provided by Elections Canada for electronic filers. The second question would be, “I would like this money to: a) come from general revenues, or b) be added to my own tax assessment.” The final question would be, “I would like the origin of this contribution to be: a) disclosed to the party or independent candidate receiving it, or b) kept anonymous and confidential.”

Splitting up the questions like this allows those who believe it must be their own funds that contribute to political parties to put their money where their mouth is. However, more importantly, it means that someone who does not have two cents, and someone who is a millionaire, have the same weight in the fundraising process.

Everybody has the option but not the requirement to do so anonymously, so the data cannot be automatically used by political parties. Allowing people to say no to donating at all, and not knowing who, should help force all parties to retain a more positive message. Divisive dog-whistle fundraising will not work on an anonymous tax-assessment-based fundraising model. Being negative would serve to discourage people from contributing to political parties overall, with them answering no to the question of whether to give before seeing the options of who to give to.

The pie can be pretty big if Canadians all have a positive view of political parties, rather than the negative views promulgated today by some elements of our political system to sew division and make people hate, rather than to want to work together.

While the Canada Revenue Agency will no doubt be less than excited to get involved in this manner, and there must be careful and specific controls to protect the privacy of the responses to this question, in my view it is the fairest possible way to ensure that political financing is put on an equal basis by all citizens for those they support here and now, at all times, in all parts of the country.

There are no doubt other models and solutions that could be looked at, but I firmly believe that the question must be asked, and I thank the member for Terrebonne for bringing public financing reform forward for us to discuss.

This legislation also reduces the fundraising limits significantly in conjunction with the reintroduction of per-vote funding. The amount of the donation cap is largely irrelevant if there is still an inequity between donors who have means and donors who do not, and so the cap at $500 or $1,500 is largely immaterial to me. Someone who makes enough to pay taxes giving $400 is still out of pocket only $100, while someone who does not make enough to pay taxes giving $400 is out of pocket the full amount, not to mention possibly out of a home or a few meals. Therefore, I find the particular change proposed in the bill to be fairly meaningless. It would not solve any existing problem.

Finally, the member for Terrebonne's bill has an absolute rather than relative coming into force provision. Given that the bill is only at second reading here in the House and has yet to get through the Commons committee, report stage, third reading and referral to the Senate, second reading at the Senate, Senate committee, Senate report stage, Senate third reading, and royal assent, it is not realistic to suggest that the bill could be in force 24 days from now.

Over the past two years, we have made strides forward on these matters. I do not believe my views on fundraising reflect those of very many of my colleagues on any side of the House, but we are seeing changes both here and in several provinces.

Conservative Bill C-23, the so-called Fair Elections Act, reformed fundraising in a whole lot of ways that were detrimental to democratic society, including removing fundraising costs from capped expenses in an election campaign, and upping the donation limit by 25%, and then indexing it by $25 per year instead of by an an inflation-based formula.

I do not wish to re-litigate that particular bill. As the assistant at the time to the Liberal critic for democratic reform, I had more than enough sleepless nights trying to grok every word of that act once, and it certainly contributed to my motivation to seek a seat in this place so that this kind of abuse of democracy could not happen again.

Our own government's Bill C-50 brought in strict reporting requirements for fundraising events involving the key power brokers of government, and those working hard to replace them, which I think is genuinely important.

The thing about fundraising, and public financing of political parties, of course, is that there is no such thing as a perfect answer, only a balance of imperfect solutions. What I am sure of, though, is that Bill C-364 does not address the fundamental inequalities within our existing fundraising and public financing structure for our political system.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I found the comments and proposals by my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle to be a good deal more interesting than those in the bill we are discussing. We sit on the procedure and House affairs committee together. I am not sure I want to admit this, but I am the longest-serving member of that committee. My service there goes back 15 years. People voting in the election were still in short pants when I got on the committee, one of whom, I think was the member. His youthfulness is matched by his intelligence and enthusiasm. I will make this observation.

I have had a number of unconventional positions throughout my career as a member of Parliament and I made an effort to put them on paper and get them published the quasi-academic journals that circulate around this place, Policy Options, for example. I suggest that the ideas the hon. member suggested in the first half of his remarks would have a suitable home in a publication like that and then could become part of the ongoing debate over something which, quite frankly, will never be an issue that is resolved. It will always be an issue that is subject to further refinement. That is the nature of our political system, it is the nature of our rules in the House of Commons, and it also is the nature of our laws applying to elections and, in particular, fundraising.

I want to talk a bit about the bill itself. That is, after all, why we are assembled here today. This bill is, in a sense, a set of proposed solutions in search of a problem, and I will explain what I mean.

In general, the political financing structure we have now is better than it has ever been before. As one consequence of my Methuselah-like longevity in this place, I am able to look back to a distant time, a land that time forgot, as it were, when dinosaurs ruled the earth or, at any rate, ruled fundraising. When I was first elected, there were no fundraising limits at all.

[An hon. member]

The Conservatives.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Someone suggested that the dinosaur connection is to the Conservatives, and I would point out that the Liberals at the time closely resembled trilobites.

At that time, the dinosaurs who ruled were the vast institutions, companies that could contribute large amounts of money, phenomenal amounts of money, federally regulated companies, like the banks, for example, that would donate massive amounts of money to parties and expected preferment in return. It was an inherently corrupting system, though I do not think the people who engaged in it were intentionally trying to be corrupt.

I was one of the participants in that system. I can remember setting up fundraising dinners, for which companies would buy tables. All the parties did this. I am happy to say that Jean Chrétien, to his everlasting credit, changed the way this worked in 2004. He introduced a $5,000 limit, which took effect in that year.

When the Harper government came into power, it lowered that limit to $1,000 per year and, additionally, all forms of corporate and union donations, which had been capped by the Chrétien government, were banned entirely. That number has since drifted up to $1,500, and my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle explained exactly how it would escalate in the future.

The combined effect of limits on donation amounts and bans on corporate and union giving was to change the fundraising incentives for our parties fundamentally. Instead of pursuing a small number of donors with a large number of dollars each, we now had to pursue a large number of donors with a small number each, that cap being, depending on the year one looks at, somewhere between $5,000 under Chrétien, $1,000 under the initial Harper rules, and the $1,500 that prevails today. Compared to infinite, these are very small numbers, and the effect has been enormously beneficial on the politics of our country.

We have a much cleaner democracy and a populist fundraising system. The Conservatives have done the best at the populist fundraising in dollars measured, but we can see the Liberals are figuring this out, too. It is having an effect not merely on the way they raise funds, but on the way they engage in policy to make themselves attractive to people who might potentially make donations. Those people are not the executives of giant companies; they are the people who make donations of $1,000 or $1,500 and, in some cases, $40 or $50.

I thought the old system turned money into a kind of poison, but with the caps that exist today, it is a very different thing. When we pursue donations, we are pursuing donations from people who are typically our own voters, and sometimes they can be outside of our riding, but they are people who feel strongly. We all get one vote. If I feel strongly about an issue, but my colleague does not feel so strongly about it, we both get one vote and are equalized out. However, donations allow for a bit of variation, up to $1,500 worth. They do not allow for someone, let alone a company, to have $100,000 or $1 million worth of variation, which was possible in the past, but they do allow people to follow up and show the depth of their commitment, which is entirely reasonable, I submit.

Now, that is the issue of caps, but the issue of the per-vote subsidy needs to be addressed. It had a very specific purpose when introduced. It was introduced to allow the parties to adjust. If we were going to a small per-capita amount, we were eliminating the giant amounts of money from banks, Bombardier, airlines, and federally regulated companies that wanted very specific benefits in return for their donations. They got rid of the system that used to exist when Brian Mulroney was in power. I remember, as a Reform Party researcher, looking this up: x amount would be given to the Conservative government of the day, and a smaller amount, over and over again, one donation after another, somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of that went to the Liberal Party. One was the bribe to get the policy one wanted and the smaller amount was the bribe to be quiet about that first bribe. This was a terrible system, and it is gone now.

Transitioning from that system to $5,000 per capita, at the time, was something that could have left parties in the lurch. The solution was the per-vote subsidy to allow parties to have time. However, what was intended to be temporary became permanent, in part because it had the effect of rewarding the party in power disproportionately.

If party A winds up winning more votes than party B, it gets paid more. This is not a level playing field. It was a danger I expressed back when Paul Martin was prime minister, and the expectation was that he would win 250 seats of the 300 in the House when he was described as a juggernaut. I said the Liberals could wind up getting, say, 50% of the votes, which is half the per-vote subsidy, and the other parties would be splitting their half among themselves and would not have been able to conduct campaigns. This would lead to an inertia where all the serious politics is essentially about which internal faction of the Liberal Party one supports, because they would always be in power, and if in the next election they won 55% or 60% and then 70%, we would be on our way to a one-party-plus state, as Stephen Harper described it at the time in a paper he published.

I was always adamant that we must get rid of the per-vote subsidy because it had that pernicious effect, potentially. In fact, if we look at the history, the per-vote subsidy, which was opposed by my party, had the curious effect of giving far more money to my party, which won the next few elections and then got rid of the per-vote subsidy. Bringing it back, I submit, would lead to wildly unfair results being reintroduced. I am very glad to see that gone.

There is another consideration here that needs to be mentioned. There is one party in this place that is absolutely, critically dependant upon a per-vote subsidy because it has not been able to raise funds, and that is the party of the sponsor, the Bloc Québécois. The system kept the Bloc Québécois on life support, despite the fact that, in the last year, it raised less than the amount that is in my own riding's war chest. This is a problem of that party. It cannot generate enough support from its potential donor base. While I have some sympathy for its members, the job is to make themselves appeal to their potential voters to the extent that their potential voters will give them the funds to follow through. This a reasonable expectation. The New Democrats do it, the Greens do it, the Liberals do it, my party does it, and the Bloc Québécois should do it too.

In conclusion, I do not support the bill before us. I think it contains several bad ideas. Finally, I do think, in general, regardless of the government that has been in power for the last decade and a half, that we have been trending in the right direction, and that makes me very happy, on the whole.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in the House today to support the bill introduced by my colleague from Terrebonne. It is an excellent bill that could improve our democracy in tangible ways.

I am always very moved when we speak of the quality of our democratic systems and the way societies are structured to provide citizens with the greatest amount of power so they can make decisions that affect them, their communities, their families, and their collective life. It reminds me of something that the French historian Henri Guillemin said, that despite all its shortcomings, democracy is the system of hope. It is the system of hope because we can always tell ourselves that by working together, we can change our society and accomplish big things, because nothing stands in the way of the future. The future is not ransom to a dictator or monarchy. Democracy is the system where all citizens are equal and can choose the representatives that will speak on their behalf in the House and will vote, draft, or change the laws for society. Debates are always extremely important. That is key.

That is why we should all take this opportunity to reflect on the quality of our democratic life and figure out how to make sure that our democratic system, our electoral system, are truly about the people and that they are the ones making decisions, not this country's bankers, oil companies, or millionaires. I think that is the true intent behind the member for Terrebonne's bill. We really need to think hard about that, because it changes everything in a number of ways.

The first, of course, is that it reduces the influence that money, the elite, Bay Street, and millionaires have on how political parties shape their platforms and their agendas and the choices they make when they are in office.

Just look at our neighbour to the south. In the United States, the influence of money has reached staggering proportions. That is why we must avoid such a situation at all cost. That is why it is important to lower the personal limit for donations to political parties. That is why public funding for political parties is important. When we look at the U.S. Constitution, we can see that in theory, there is a good system in place, with plenty of checks and balances. In theory, it should be a perfect republic, but it has been blighted for years by the influence of money, by the fact that Republicans and Democrats are forced to beg for hundreds of millions of dollars, year after year, for their election campaigns. Under this system, members of Congress and presidents are hopelessly beholden to people with deep pockets.

I took a course on the American political system at McGill University, and the first thing our professor told us was that we might think there are two political parties in the U.S., but in fact there are 436. There are 435 members of Congress, 100 senators, and one president, and each of them is their own political party, making decisions based on what donors in their own ridings want. That is the scenario we hope to avoid by reducing the influence of money.

It is surreal to hear the Liberals and Conservatives, who used to be such great pals, saying today that there is nothing wrong with our system. I do not know what planet they are living on. I would like them to make me a list of all the people in their ridings who can afford to write a $1,500 cheque to a political party every year. I am sorry, but middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join them do not have $1,500 to give to a political party. Only those who are very well off can afford to do that. I think the proposed compromise of lowering the maximum to $500 is perfectly reasonable. That is already a lot of money.

That is already a lot of money for people earning $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000 per year. I do not know what planet the Liberals and Conservatives live on. There must be unicorns and Care Bears there. It is fantasy land, completely ridiculous.

Perhaps the Liberals and Conservatives have a lot of friends able to cut $1,500 cheques. Real people, in real life, cannot afford to do that. Obviously, the Conservatives and Liberals are connected to the world of Bay Street bankers, stockbrokers, stock traders, and speculators who drive others to ruin.

Obviously, they are not going to do anything to protect the pensions and retirement plans of people like Sears employees, but they will continue to have an electoral system where the wealthiest can have influence.

It is the same old story. That is not what the Liberals told us during the election campaign. They wanted to restore trust, put Canadians first and clean up democratic institutions. Oh yes! They also wanted to bring in electoral reform. What happened to that again? It disappeared.

When it is not to their advantage, the Liberals break their promises. The Prime Minister, with his hand on his heart, said that they would not back down just because something is difficult.

In the end, it was quite difficult. It was so difficult that the Liberals did not realize that there was a consensus at the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, that the four opposition parties were in agreement, and that there was a proposal on the table. However, as this was not in the interests of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, it was scrapped.

Today, there is an opportunity for the government to redeem itself. We are giving it the opportunity to show that it is prepared to do what is right for democracy and for our electoral system. I suspect that we are going to have to give the Liberal government a failing grade for a second time because they will choose to keep the existing system, which has considerable advantages for the wealthiest Canadians.

What the member for Terrebonne has put on the table would reduce the influence of money and also make it possible to have a plurality of voices and greater diversity of viewpoints in the House.

Of course, a proportional voting system would be the best way to ensure that every vote is represented in Parliament. It would also encourage people to vote because they would be convinced that if they were to vote, their point of view would be represented in Parliament. At this time, the current system encourages strategic voting, which means always voting for what is least objectionable. This leads people to stay home because they do not believe it is worthwhile voting for a small party, as their vote will be wasted.

A proportional voting system would be the best way to pave the way for a parliament that truly represents the will of the people. That is what democracy means. It is supposed to represent the will of the people.

Public financing of political parties is also an interesting method, because getting two dollars for every vote allows small political parties to continue to exist, since they do not get money from multimillionaires or from electoral fund reimbursements. Since the party did not spend much last time, it does not have access to reimbursements either. Those two dollars would allow small parties to continue to exist, to promote their ideas and their point of view, and to shake things up.

This is important for our democracy, to prevent it from getting stale and turning into more of the same all the time, which unfortunately has been the case at the federal level for the past 150 years. Having multiple parties encourages people to go out and vote. Even if they know that their candidate is not going to win, they know that for four years, those two dollars will help the party that represents their point of view, their values, and their principles.

In closing, with the little time I have remaining, I will appeal to the Liberal members to vote in favour of the Liberal legacy, to vote in favour of the rules put in place by Jean Chrétien, with a relatively low limit on personal donations and public financing of political parties, in order to respect the intention that the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien had at the time, namely to clean up public standards and prevent money from influencing politics. I urge the Liberal members to vote in favour of the Liberal legacy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an interesting bill, I will say that much.

Electoral reform, finances, and the election finances act always make for an interesting discussion. My colleague and friend has had a number of discussions on this particular issue. There are individuals in this chamber who I know like to have that debate on the direction we should be moving and how political entities are in fact financed. It will be one of those never-ending debates. There are always ways that we might want to look at making some changes.

The direction we have been moving in the last 20 or so years is somewhat encouraging. I have an immense amount of respect for Elections Canada. Many established democracies around the world and countries who want to establish democracies look at Canada as a case in point. Even though we might be a relatively young nation at 150 years old, there is a sense that we have it right, and that we do not want to be stagnant, but want to continue to look at ways we can improve the situation and do not take things for granted.

The government does not take the issue of finances for granted. We have a fantastic Minister of Democratic Institutions who has brought forward legislation that will see substantial changes. At the end of the day, this government and, maybe not quite as much, the Harper government, but governments in general have attempted to modify our Elections Act and elections finances act to strengthen our democracy. Sometimes there is a little step back, but all in all, we have been moving forward. That really applies to the area of finances.

We have seen a significant shift. When I was first elected at the provincial level, and it would apply in the same manner at the federal level, politicians would go to some fairly well-financed individuals or corporations to pony up hundreds of thousands of dollars to a political entity. We look at it from that perspective. I can remember my 1988 election campaign, when lot of money financing that election, at least for some, came from outside the province of Manitoba. That same thing could be seen in Canada as well. There was a point in time when people could actually raise money that would come indirectly from outside Canada.

All in all, when we look at it, we have moved significantly forward. We have a healthier democracy today than we had in previous years. I choose to believe, through discussions such as the one we are having this evening, such as the fine work that the procedure and House affairs committee does, and the work of other individuals who have a keen interest in this subject matter, that we will continue to evolve and look at ways to improve the system.

I want to reflect on the legislation that the Minister of Democratic Institutions has brought to this House. With respect to leaders, leadership candidates, the Prime Minister, and all ministers, when they have fundraising events, we have committed as a government that when a ticket costs in excess of $200, the names of the attendees have to be publicized. We have talked about having a publicly accessible facility. There are things that the government has recognized it would be nice to move forward on. We have taken action on those.

We are asking our friends in the Conservatives and New Democrats and in particular their respective leaders, to look at that and maybe not wait until the legislation is actually proclaimed but indicate and send a strong message to Canadians that they too believe in the type of transparency and accountability that we are talking about on the government side.

It needs to be emphasized for my friends in the Bloc and the New Democrats that to try to give the impression that the elections are not publicly financed is not entirely true. There is substantial support for our federal elections and candidates. I as a candidate, for example, can attempt to raise money and those fine people who decide to donate to me, or to the Liberal Party through me, will get a tax credit. If people give a $100 donation, they will get $75 back. Those across the way talked about $1,500 donations and so forth. In my case and I know in my colleagues' case it is very rare that I would get a $1,500 donation. I have no objection to taking a $1,500 donation but to make it very clear, whether someone gives me a $1,500 donation, which is the limit according to the law, or a $100 donation, I appreciate both donors, or if it is a $10 donation. My vote is not for sale. I am not going to be bought by $1,500 so it is wrong for others across the way to try to give an impression that a member of this House could be bought by a $1,500 donation.

In fact, I tell individuals that my campaign is not just about money. They can volunteer in the campaign. I value my volunteers, the ones who come and knock on doors with me, the ones who put up signs, the ones who circulate brochures and do all those wonderful tasks that are so important in having a campaign where we are trying to communicate with the residents whose support we want. I value their efforts just as much as I value the individuals who say they cannot go out and do door knocking with me but will give me a $100 donation. Both are of great value to me. For people to think that they can give me a substantial donation or put in a phenomenal number of hours or put up 500 signs and they are going to be getting a favour or something in return from me, that is just not true. That is not the way it works. Democracy is a wonderful thing, and I honestly believe that I am not alone, that all members of the chamber are honourable members and they cannot be bought for $1,500.

We have taken away big companies, corporations, and unions and the manner in which they used to finance political parties. We have put it back to individuals. The greatest growth in donations to the Liberal Party of Canada, I understand, is through those small donations that are coming from tens of thousands of Canadians every year. It has been growing as Canadians recognize good sound policy that is coming from the government, how this government is supporting our middle class and those wanting to be a part of it and those who do not have the financial means. They see the positive things that are being done by this government and a number of them want to participate in the democratic process by ensuring they continue to support us.

Whether they support us as a party or they support the Conservatives or even the New Democrats or the Greens, democracy is very important to us as a nation. It takes money in order to finance it. There is nothing wrong with individuals giving donations to political parties. We have fantastic independent institutions like our ethics commissioners and our lobbyists. We have good Elections Canada rules in place to protect our democracy and the integrity of this House and I have full confidence in our current system. No doubt over the coming years, we will see some positive changes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. I had the opportunity to work with him on the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. I would not want to hurt his feelings today, but I have rarely heard him give such an unfocused speech.

I think that we should pay serious attention to one particular witness I heard at the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. He is considered a leading expert on electoral laws. His name is Jean-Pierre Kingsley. I asked him a very simple question about the link between political party financing and a more equitable electoral system. He said that the per-vote public subsidies to political parties should be restored as soon as possible. Liberals and Conservatives should put that in their pipe and smoke it. That is what Jean-Pierre Kingsley says. He is not some kind of dinosaur, he is someone who deeply cares about the vitality of democracy.

That is what we are talking about, the vitality of democracy. We are not trying to determine if the Bloc Québécois is in financial trouble, if the Green Party and the NDP are in financial trouble or if the Conservative Party has more or less money now than when it was in government.

The Liberal Party was once in favour of electoral reform and a return to a per-vote subsidy for political parties, but now that its coffers are full and it is in power, it no longer sees the need for reform. Why is that?

Certain ideas kept coming up during meetings of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. We did not end up reforming anything, but things were said, and some of those things had to do with the ruling in Figueroa. A true democracy enables true democratic debate. True democratic debate is predicated on a plurality of positions. That is the purpose the per-vote subsidy serves.

The question that came up was why citizens would bother going to the polls. We have heard statements such as, “Fewer and fewer people vote” and “People are cynical about democratic institutions”. The truth is that people will go to the polls out of a sense of conviction.

A modicum of electoral fairness can only be achieved through a per-vote subsidy. Of course, a proportional ballot would have been even fairer, and would have brought electoral pluralism to the House of Commons.

Canadians will go to the polls to vote out of conviction and they might vote for the Green Party, for example. They know that by voting for the Green Party, $1.75 will be given to that party so that it can continue advancing its cause between elections, as part of the democratic debate in a democratic society, so that when elections are called, all parties can participate form the outset in a fair and democratic electoral debate. That is how a real democrat sees it, unlike a Sunday democrat such as the Liberal Party deputy leader. On this side, we are no Sunday democrats. It has nothing to do with our coffers being full or not. It has to do solely with our sense of democracy. I appeal to the sense of democracy of all members so they stop letting the executive control them for a moment.

We know that, when you are in government, it is easy to raise cash with cocktail parties attended by a cash-for-access minister. That issue was raised in the House. The Prime Minister had to answer for that. When this kind of thing happens, it reflects badly on all parliamentarians. Those people are saying they want to continue doing things the same way.

I will have the opportunity to speak to it again, but I want to say for now that my colleague has just introduced a balanced bill that provides for public financing of political parties. That is how we can engage citizens in the democratic process and get them to vote. That is what is at stake in this bill.

I would be very disappointed if parliamentarians moved to kill this bill before it can be considered clause-by-clause, amended and improved.

Why would this bill not pass first reading and then be improved by all the real democrats in the House?