Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 12th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Before we go to Mr. Wild, I failed to say, just so we're clear, the vote on clause 46, because it's consequential to clause 47, would apply to clause 47.

Mr. Wild, Mr. Stringham.

[Joe Wild]

Monsieur Chénier will speak to the charter issue.

[Marc Chénier]

I'd just like to point out, Mr. Chair, that the analysis for this proposal was done, and it was determined that 99% of contributions to parties in Canada are for an amount less than $1,000 and that the average donation to parties and candidates is less than $200.

Having said that, I think the policy rationale for the whole package--because I think they should all be viewed together as a package--of measures dealing with political financing, that is, the ban on union, corporate, and association contributions, along with the lower contribution limits, serves to meet important policy objectives of encouraging parties in Canada to strengthen their connection with a broader base of the electorate and to eliminate the opportunity for and the perception of undue influence that might be had by wealthy corporate, union, or organizational contributors.

It also provides clear rules and eliminates exceptions that are currently confusing, as the Chief Electoral Officer noted during his appearance before this committee. The local exception for contributions by unions and corporations is not a clear rule for contributors.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Excuse me, Chair, I'm sure we're not speaking about corporate or union donations; we're talking about individual donations here.

The final point I think I would just make for us all to consider is that there is administrative expense involved in receiving, receipting, recording, and administering donations, and when you look at the cost per donation of going through that whole process, we might want to consider whether $1,000 is unrealistic in many cases.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

There are actually three reasons the Accountability Act limits donations to $1,000.

First, we promised it in the election, so we're delivering it.

Second, we believe that political donations should not be a tool of industry or individuals to purchase influence within the political system, and by reducing the allowable donation to $1,000, you accordingly reduce the ability of individual donors to purchase influence in the political process.

And finally, it will force political parties to reconnect with everyday, ordinary, nine-to-five, lunch-bucket, hardworking people. That's what some parties in this country have done. Other parties have not succeeded in finding broad support from everyday people to finance their operations.

I believe this amendment is designed to subsidize those parties that have not succeeded in building a broad donor base and to subsidize those parties--or that party--that rely on wealthy, connected insiders to finance their operations.

So we will oppose this amendment on the grounds that $1,000 is reasonable and on the further grounds that no one other than the very wealthy would be able to make a $2,000 donation. As such, we wonder why the Liberal Party or any party would want to put in place an amendment here that seeks to empower the very rich to enhance their influence in the democratic process.

The Conservative Party believes that the playing field should be made level for people of all income classes by restricting donations at a reasonable level of $1,000, so we strongly support the existing provisions of the Accountability Act, and we will be voting against this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Sauvageau, then Mr. Martin, and then Ms. Jennings.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Ms. Jennings reminded me, and rightfully so, that Mr. Poilievre seems to have forgotten that Bill C-24 has been in force for two years now, and that the wealthy, companies and unions are not allowed to make contributions to political parties. Bill C-2 also deprives them of that right. This amendment does not give them that right either. We have to be careful about the kind of message we're sending out. You have three reasons for proposing these conditions: Liberal, Liberal and Liberal. You are not motivated by political reasons or by a desire to achieve transparency.

If you go with the Quebec model, it's all or nothing. During the 1970s, when the Elections Act was adopted in Quebec, a contribution ceiling was set at $3,000. That amount has not been indexed since 1976 or 1977 and it applies only to individuals. I don't have a problem with the $2,000 limit. I'm not asking that it be set at $3,000. You yourself agreed to let Pierre-F. Côté testify before the committee. We heard that 99 per cent of all contributions are under $200. Consequently, I don't have a problem with applying cost-of-living indexation to certain legislative provisions, as is done in Quebec.

Mr. Poilievre often raises this matter and I'm curious to know how many cases of serious fraud have been reported in Quebec, where the ceiling is set at $3,000 for individuals. To my knowledge, no cases have been reported in 30 years. Therefore, I don't see a problem with increasing the limit from $1,000 to $2,000. If someone were to donate $999 to my campaign, I would be no more obligated to vote in favour of bank mergers or the CRTC than I would be if that person had given me $1,500. This argument doesn't wash, but when you're desperate, you grasp at straws.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin, and then Ms. Jennings.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

One of the reasons I like this $1,000 limit in Bill C-2 is that it gives me a raise in pay of a couple of thousand dollars a year. I won't be able to donate as much as I currently do, but I don't approve of this idea of moving it up to $2,000. I think the spirit of this bill, the accountability nature of this bill, is to reconnect with the grassroots. Most of the clauses in this bill I think seek to reconnect with Canadians in a real way, and this is one of those clauses that, if for no other reason than the symbolism that we're going to take big money out of politics, warrants our support.

The other side of the coin, which I realize Mr. Owen's amendment doesn't deal with, is the banning of union and corporate donations altogether. That remedies a terrible injustice that was in Bill C-24.

My own union, the carpenter's union, has 168 independent locals across the country--I'll be very brief with this--and we were allowed to donate a total of $1,000, all 168 combined, whereas Robin's Donuts or Tim Hortons has 1,000 franchises and they can donate $1,000 each. We found it completely unsatisfactory. So I welcome this change that unions and businesses and corporations...nada, not a penny.

People down to $1,000 each--we'll just find more people. That's the thing, get more people engaged in the political process. It's a plus, it's a bonus. There are very few donors giving larger than $1,000 in our party anyway. It's not going to hurt us or our ability to operate, and I think other parties would benefit from this. It forces them to get in touch with those smaller ma and pa $50 and $100 donors. You only need more of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Ms. Jennings, and then Mr. Lukiwski.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

I appreciate the comments my colleague, Monsieur Sauvageau, made, correcting some of the statements that were made.

I would also like to emphasize that there is absolutely no need for any member of this committee or any member of the public to somehow believe that Bill C-2 is changing the current regime regarding the legality or non-legality of financial donations from corporations or unions. That has been illegal, under the political financing bill, for two years now.

Under the previous government, Bill C-24 was adopted and came into force January 1, 2004. At that point, it became illegal for corporations and unions to donate to political parties. It also became illegal for individuals to donate more than.... At that point, it was $5,000 a year. But because, under that law, it was indexed, in 2006 under that annual indexation it becomes--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

A point of order, Ms. Jennings.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Not to be rude, Ms. Jennings--I don't mean to interrupt you--but I think you misunderstand. I was wondering if we could get the technical advisers to clear up an issue that may save us a long debate later on.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't know.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I think it would be helpful. I'm just asking if Madam Jennings would allow it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

If she wants to ask, she can do that, Mr. Martin. But that's not a point of order.

Ms. Jennings has the floor. There's lots of time to ask her.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

In terms of the individual donation, prior to January 1, 2004, there was no limit to the amount individuals could donate to political parties or to leadership candidates, for instance. The Liberal electoral financing bill, Bill C-24, which was adopted and came into force January 1, 2004, made it illegal for a corporation or a union to donate to a political party and made it illegal for an individual--

[Voices]

Wrong.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Excuse me, may I continue?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Remember what we were talking about. We're going from $1,000 to $2,000, not unions and corporations.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

And creating a top limit. At that time, it was $5,000 indexable. It became $5,400 with the indexation in 2006.

The point I would like to make about this amendment, which was put forward by my colleague, Mr. Owen, is that by creating a limit of $2,000, it does not in any way impede any political party from, to use the words of my colleague, Mr. Poilievre, on the other side of this table, “connecting with the grassroots”, because in the words of their own technical advisers, the Chief Electoral Officer reports that the average donation is under $200. So if one were to use his logic, the government should have made the maximum donation by an individual $200 annually, but it has not done that. It is proposing an upper limit that is five times the average donation. Therefore, I believe his logic does not hold.

But I also know that Mr. Martin is going to be voting with his friends, the Conservatives, and therefore it will be a tie vote. The chair will do what he has done from the beginning, which is side with the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Jennings, don't do that. Don't go there.

I read a statement at the outset, so you're all clear as to how I am voting on this. Don't take shots at the chair.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Mr. Poilievre.