Debates of March 18th, 1994

Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is about the term the hon. member just used, and it is not the first time the hon. member referred to betrayal or mentioned the fact that we have no democratic mandate, or have no right to sit in this House because we are members of the Bloc Quebecois. He has said this both inside and outside the House. The right to sit in Parliament is not a matter for debate. It is not a matter for political debate, either inside or outside the House. We are talking about the basic right of people to elect the representatives they want to elect.

Voters elected certain members of Parliament, and it is not up to the hon. member to question our right to sit in this House, as he did last week or as he did today, when he used the word traitor.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am sorry, but this is debate, not a point of order.

[David Walker, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Chair's proposal to look at this problem and get back to the House next week.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I have no objection to the Chair postponing any further discussion on the terms used earlier in the day by a member of the Bloc Quebecois. We will check the blues.

However, the Chair did hear what was said by the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester. He used the terms traitor and betrayal, and the hon. member should withdraw immediately, because what he said was quite clear. After that, we will see if any members on our side used terms that were unacceptable. We will have to look at them in context. If I say that you betray your mandate, I am not saying that you are traitors to the nation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the Chair perhaps take the dictionary and read out the definition of betrayal, and then-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. To end this discussion, I promise members on both sides of the House that the Chair will make a full review of the blues and get back to the House as soon as possible.

It being 1.55 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Party Fundraising

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

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.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

On a point of order, the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member recognizes having used the terms traitor and betrayal. Earlier-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I want to say to the hon. member that I have indicated that I will review the text and check the words used and see if they were aimed at one member or the other. In other words, I want to know the full context in order to give this House the most accurate ruling possible under the circumstances.

I would like the House to proceed now with private members' business. The hon. member for Richelieu has the floor.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to present this motion to this House and to launch the debate on the following motion: "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 like to thank the hon. member for Frontenac for seconding the motion, and thank also all members of the Bloc Quebecois who asked to be heard in this debate.

I hope to get a favourable and co-operative hearing from the Reform Party, as well as the Liberal Party and independent members of this House, so we can move a step closer to better democracy by dealing with the financing of political parties.

This motion is extremely important, because it goes to the roots, to the foundations of democracy. It reminds us that the real bosses are the voters and not the big backers.

Over the last few years, several public financing experiments have been successful. The socio-political context has also demonstrated the need for a real reform of the financing of political parties. The Lortie Commission, set up by the previous government, was supposed to look into the matter, but it barely touched on the problem of financing, opting for the status quo rather than real reform.

Less than 20 years ago, several political parties in Canada were financed only by large corporations or unions. Today, the share of companies in electoral financing is about half of all the money collected by the various parties, according to 1991-92 data from Elections Canada.

Although the proportion has changed, the amount provided is still significant and a potential source of conflict. Since the reform of 1974 and the ensuing evolution of fundraising, small contributions from private individuals account for a larger share of the financing of political parties. Such democratization is very much due to the institution of a federal tax credit on political contributions, which was adopted in 1974.

Some may believe that present measures are sufficient to limit undue influence and that it is in no way necessary to cap donations. Yet, during the last ten years, charges of influence-peddling made against Senate and House members tend to prove the contrary.

I believe that party fundraising must be reorganized on the basis financing by the public. Legislators and politicians can only benefit from such a change.

Why am I positive about this? Because of two basic and fundamental principles which should influence all political activity: transparency and democracy. Canadians and Quebecers now demand absolute transparency from their elected representatives. Greed is certainly a very human instinct, but it is incompatible with the political ideal of serving the common good. In this context, the role of governments is to deter anything which could prompt someone to seek public office for personal interests. The fact is that all federal political parties felt the need to clarify their position on this issue, and made it one of the main themes during the last election campaign.

Numerous examples come to mind. For instance, some candidates and former members lost their party's official support for them, and that was bitter medecine indeed. Political organizers were publicly criticized. Some political decisions were reversed, contrary to all expectations. Whether lobbying, patron-

age, or conflicts of interest were involved, we found out, mostly through the media, whenever people had tried to influence those entrusted with public funds, in order to get some personal benefit for themselves or their agents. Money, of course, is always the great motivator.

As long as a significant proportion of party revenues comes from corporate or union sources, ordinary citizens will have to ask themselves whose interests we are looking after. As elected representatives, it is our duty to do everything we can to improve our image. So many people have a negative opinion of politics, which they view as a dubious, immoral and obscure activity in which it is better to not get involved. Reorganization of party fundraising would certainly solve part of the problem. Such an initiative would create a new climate of transparency which would restore some credibility for political parties and politicians.

How can a worker in my riding who barely makes $15,000 or $20,000 a year seriously believe that an engineering firm, a major bank or a contractor is prepared to give $50,000 to a political party without any hope of obtaining a return on that investment? How can that worker seriously think that his opinion carries as much weight as that of the engineer? To ask the question is to answer it. One would really have to have one's head buried in the sand to refuse to admit that there are interests involved in those public-minded donations.

And now what about the big fundraisers? Smokes and mirrors is often the answer. Good connections in the business community lead to access to the inner sanctum, the Senate, or to the possibility of demanding some sort of payback.

Restricting financing of political parties to the public would send a clear message of transparency and be an unequivocal sign that companies, unions, big fundraisers will no longer exert undue influence over the political decision-making process. Are we going to tolerate any longer the fact that Canadian chartered banks, which are the most important sources of capital for campaign funds, run political parties behind the scenes?

Financing by the public not only sends a message of transparency but, if adopted, sends a message of democracy. Since firms, associations and unions do not vote, there is no reason for them to play a predominant role in our electoral and political system by funding more than half of the activities of the Canadian political parties. In fact, they have many forums other than the political channels in which to articulate their views and their needs.

Canadian citizens are the ones who must control our electoral system. They constitute the foundation of our democracy. However, democracy is more than the right to a free vote and a secret ballot, it is more than holding elections every four or five years.

Democracy is many things and the financing of political parties is an important part of the democratic process, as important as the redrawing of electoral boundaries several years ago to ensure a better distribution of seats according to popular vote.

Obviously, it is easier for political party fund raisers to collect a $5,000 contribution than 100 contributions of $50. However, this fact, which could be indicative of some laziness on the part of fund raisers, results in parties which are highly centralized and where ordinary members have no place.

By giving in to this lazy attitude, political parties are agreeing to make themselves available to corporate contributors, turning their backs in the process on thousands upon thousands of Canadians. It may be an easier way to raise money, but it is surely less democratic.

Contrary to what some people claim, we are not breaking new ground in Canada as far as regulating the financing of political parties goes. At least seven provinces, in addition to the federal government, have laws governing contributions to political parties.

Four provinces, namely Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Alberta, already limit the size of contributions that can be made to political parties and to candidates. Three other provinces, namely Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, as well as the federal government only require parties to disclose the source and size of contributions made. Moreover, seven of these eight jurisdictions allocate public funds to political parties that meet specific criteria.

It is obvious, however, that Quebec's legislation is the most progressive of all, not only with regard to political party financing but also all aspects of the electoral system, including provisions relating to political parties.

Quebec passed the Act to govern the financing of political parties in 1977, but the first reforms date back to 1964, under Jean Lesage.

Quebec completely redesigned voting rules, decriminalizing the whole process and placing electoral activities under the strict control of the chief electoral officer, whom they call director general of elections.

It is particularly interesting to note that the Quebec Liberal Party, which had relied heavily on corporate sponsors up until then, adjusted very well and very smoothly to the new rules. Its annual revenue in Quebec is in excess of $7 million. That is two and a half times more than the Liberal Party in office in Ottawa.

Statutory requirements regarding the source and amount of contributions have now become a standard of life in Quebec. This experiment has demonstrated beyond any doubt that financing by the people is feasible.

At the federal level, the Bloc Quebecois also proved conclusively that it could be done. Since its inception, the Bloc has never been funded by anybody other than the voters. No dona-

tions can be accepted from any corporation, union or organization. Yet, we won 75 per cent of the seats in Quebec.

Ottawa already has a piece of legislation providing for the disclosure of sources and amounts of donations received by political parties. The same legislation also governs party expenses. The purpose of this motion is to limit solely to voters the right to donate to a party and to restrict such donations to a maximum of $5,000 a year. This may be a difficult choice, but it is necessary.

The foundation of a political party is its membership. It is on this basis that parties succeed or fail.

A revamping of the financing process will put new life into the parties. It will replace establishment-controlled parties with truly popular, truly democratic parties.

I remind you in closing that the Quebec legislature unanimously endorsed such a bill when it had to make a decision on the funding of political parties by the people. It unanimously embraced the basic goal of democratizing political institutions. To take the same position here in this House would be a nice gesture for unity, a clear message that would be very well received by all citizens.

In closing, I would like to pay tribute to a member who spoke up and fought a long battle on this issue, namely François Gérin, the former member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead who, within the Conservative Party, fought a six-year battle for the funding of political parties by the people. He pursued his campaign with the Bloc Quebecois as he was the one who proposed, when the Bloc was founded, that political parties be financed only by individuals with the right to vote.

So this former member who sat for nine years in this House, François Gérin, was a pioneer on this issue-the funding of political parties by the people-in Canada. I am happy to thank him for this and to carry on his fight by taking this issue not to the parties themselves but directly to the House. I hope that the Liberal and the Reform parties as well as the independent members will give their unanimous support so that we can take another step toward democracy.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester on a point of order.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I can see that some of my colleagues believe that my words were unacceptable and, after due consideration, I think that some hon. members may have found what I said to be insulting. Therefore, I want to withdraw the words "traitor", "treason" and "betrayal", and I do so unequivocally.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I want to thank the hon. member for his decision, which I respect. I know that, from time to time, our debates can be very intense and will continue to be so, but I hope that the people in the Chair will be able, with the co-operation of all members, to keep our discussions at a respectful level, because we have all been elected here to serve Canadians in this 35th Parliament.

We will now revert to private members' business. The parliamentary secretary of the Leader of the Government in the House has the floor.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Richelieu and I am pleased that he put this motion before the House, because it is very important. I know that there are several such private members' motions before the House, and I hope that we will be able to hold many debates on these issues in the coming weeks.

I want to mention the hon. member's very careful review of the situation in respect of election contributions that has maintained itself in the province of Quebec now for some time. While I recognize the validity of some of the arguments he has put forward, there are more compelling arguments for perhaps considering that while the situation may be a fair or reasonable approach there are other fair and reasonable approaches. The Canada Elections Act has taken that approach. Obviously it is different from what the hon. member has proposed. That is why he made the proposal he put before the House.

I note other people than myself have expressed views on this question. It is important for the hon. member to recognize that those views have been put forward by people who are fairly experienced and competent in the field.

The Canada Elections Act, as the hon. member stated, does not currently have a limit on the size of contributions. Nor does it limit who may make those contributions aside from non-Canadians. The language of the act in my view is a little loose on that point.

The hon. member is aware that during the last Parliament the special committee on electoral reform was struck to review the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. I had the honour to be a member of that committee. I know we spent a considerable amount of time discussing the question of contributions to political parties. I believe a report to the House on the subject was made by that committee, which report was not acted upon by the previous government.

I am optimistic that during this Parliament we will have an opportunity to look over the provisions of the act once again and possibly come up with some recommendations to change the existing law. I have no doubt we will be looking at the proposal

the hon. member has put forward. However looking at it and accepting it are two different things.

In its deliberations the committee considered a limit because some members of the committee were enthusiastic about the prospect of a limit such as is suggested by the hon. member in his motion. However, it was not one that found favour with the majority of the members and accordingly was not in the report.

Why was it not there? The place to look is the report of the royal commission itself. The royal commission did an extensive review of political donations in Canada. It went over not only the volume, that is the total number and the number of people who contributed, but it also looked at their source.

I would like to read a brief passage from volume I of the royal commission report. The page number does not appear on my photocopy, but it follows table 7.1. The report reads:

Large contributions from individuals are even less important as a share of total party revenue. In 1988, contributions of $2,000 or more from individuals accounted for 11.3 per cent of the total value of contributions to the Progressive Conservative Party and 7.9 per cent of contributions to the Liberal Party; only 14 individuals contributed more than $10,000 to the three largest national parties that year. The largest contribution from an individual-$103,000-was made to the New Democratic Party by Irene Dyck, and the largest donations to the Progressive Conservative and Liberal parties from individuals were $40,000 each.

The largest single contribution in 1988 was just over $1 million; it was made to the New Democratic Party by the Canadian Labour Congress.

One suspects perhaps that they are not going to be so generous in the future.

Contributions exceeding $10,000 from trade unions accounted for 11 per cent of total contributions to the New Democratic Party in 1988.

In reviewing the situation, the commission recognized that limiting contributions to individuals to $5,000 would have been very damaging to what was then one of Canada's three larger political parties. I would not call it one of the major parties, but it was one of the larger ones. To change the law, to restrict it in this way, would have serious repercussions.

I should note for the record what the recommendation of the royal commission was. I will quote recommendation 1.7.10:

We recommend that the Canada Elections Act not impose limits on the size of contributions to registered political parties, registered constituency associations, candidates, nomination contestants and leadership contestants.

I think it is very fair to point this out. The vital thing about this part of the commission's report is that they did say, and I will quote from the page a little higher up:

We recommend that disclosure requirements be broadened to cover registered constituency associations, as well as nomination and leadership campaigns. We also propose that twice a year, registered parties and constituency associations report on contributions, including the date each was received, and that their reports be filed within three months of the end of the reporting period.

The commission was recommending far greater reporting as an obligation on parties and constituency associations so that the members of the public could see who was making contributions to these organizations. The commission took the view-and I submit it was a correct and good view-that transparency in the process would make up for the lack of a limit because the limits can be got around altogether too easily.

The hon. member for Richelieu was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party before he fell by the wayside. He knows very well that the members of his party on the election reform committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, reviewed the situation of the Quebec law and discussed it fully in the committee. They were of the view that the $5,000 limit was one that was easily avoided by either corporations or trade unions, by those organizations making gifts of money to members who could then pass the money along as political donations to political parties.

In other words, a corporation that had $50,000 or $100,000 it wanted to give to a party could do it either by giving it to 20 different constituency associations in lumps of $5,000 or-the hon. member laughs. I regard that as a bit of coach and horses. Through the intent of his motion he may think it is legitimate, I am not so sure.

The other possibility is to hand the money out to directors or officers or members of the corporation and have them make the donations to the political parties involved. The money can be got there if a labour union or a corporation is intent on doing it.

It is quite unreasonable to put this restriction on these bodies so long as they have to disclose the amount of their contributions and that is exactly what the royal commission proposed.

It is exactly what our party proposed in the discussions in the committee. It is what we would have preferred to have and had we not run into so much obstruction from the now-gone Tories we would have achieved a law that would have done exactly that and brought about the disclosure.

I hope the hon. member will accept these comments in the spirit they are intended, will look at his motion in a new light and maybe withdraw it.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments the hon. member just made. It indicates a debate and perhaps a bit of a difference of opinion on this matter.

I am pleased to add my comments to the debate. It represents an opportunity for the government to begin to help restore the faith of Canadians in the electoral process.

In the past we have seen Parliament held hostage to a variety of special interest groups by their contributions. They have found support in some or all of the recognized political parties of the past. My comments are really intended on a non-partisan basis.

Special interest groups have found support in some or all of the recognized political parties. The interests of Canadians have been neglected by politicians appeasing the demands of large financial contributors. A wide spectrum of demands from business, unions and even federally funded special interest groups are regularly brought to members and to the government itself.

In politics one soon learns that nothing is free. Whatever is accepted will have an invoice following along sooner or later. The larger the gift the larger the price tag on it.

The premise of this motion is not new. As the hon. member for Richelieu has already pointed out, the province of Quebec has had similar legislation in place for over 15 years. There is a difference. Quebec's contribution limit is $3,000. Even with this $3,000 limit Quebec's provincial Liberal Party was able to raise $6.5 million during the 1986-87 campaign.

Shortage of campaign funds has not been a problem. Instead Quebec has been able to add real credibility to its legislature in these reforms.

John Parisella, director general of the Quebec Liberal Party at the time supported this contribution limit by claiming: "There is no way a government is going to sell its soul for $3,000. No individual company has a hold on us. Nobody owns this government".

One has to look no further than the current New Democratic Party government in British Columbia to understand the danger of political manipulation. Unions have been major supporters of NDP campaigns. Since the last provincial election the unions have really hit pay dirt. Only unionized companies are permitted to bid for most government contracts. Also businesses that have solid records of treating their employees fairly are now being forced to accept union intervention without their employees even having a vote. We cannot permit special interests to dominate the political agenda simply because they give money to a political party.

François Gérin, who the member has already mentioned, a Quebec Conservative during the last two terms of government was the main advocate for federal reform of political contributions. He argued that a party's acceptance of large contributions was a conflict of interest that brought the whole political process into question. He understood the perception of his constituents as he said: "Someone who works all year to earn $15,000 and has a family of three cannot understand that somebody will give $25,000 and ask nothing for it". The average family income in his riding at that time was only $15,000.

François Gérin demonstrated in his own riding the capability to run a campaign without huge contributions during a non-election period. With only 23 per cent party support on the national opinion polls, his constituency association was able to raise three times as much money as he needed to fund an election. In his case he used a strict limit of $1,000 maximum contribution.

Despite his many attempts, Mr. Gérin was never able to convince the Conservative government to change the Canada Elections Act. He did convince the Quebec caucus of the Conservative Party to adopt this policy. In the 1988 general election every member of the Quebec caucus took a vow to accept only personal contributions.

The results were quite surprising: Conservative candidates won 62 of the 75 seats, a greater success than even the Bloc Quebecois received in the last federal election. While the Conservatives received only 43 per cent of the popular support in 1988 across Canada, in Quebec that percentage was 51 per cent. In his own riding Gérin received a decisive 60 per cent of voter support. A significant amount of this additional voter support resulted from the increased interaction he had with his constituents.

Limiting the size of contributions means depending on broader support; depending on a broader support base requires more interaction with the voters. With that, financial support becomes a more significant demonstration of an electoral mandate.

As matters now stand, voting at the polls can often be a last minute decision resulting in a luck of the draw election win. In such instances those voting may give little real consideration to the value of their vote.

The opposite can be true by candidates and their parties reaching out to include even those who can make only the smallest contributions. Those considering supporting a campaign with their money will take the time to develop an understanding of the issues, the local candidates and the political parties they represent.

Corporate and personal tax considerations may vary greatly. Regardless of who makes the contribution, the same tax credit is realized. But this tax credit is of limited value to an individual, whereas after claiming a tax credit a corporation can, and corporations have, written off larger amounts as advertising or promotion expenses.

This has resulted in leaders of business, unions, special interest groups and lobbyists using their influence and other people's money to contribute to political campaigns instead of using their own personal money.

The intention of this motion is to prevent this abuse. A few powerful individuals are often in positions to make decisions that are paid for by using other people's money without their consent.

Trade unions have freely spent money raised through membership dues to support particular parties. In the case of publicly held corporations, what could have been shareholders' profits have been used to support a particular political party. Money donated to special interest groups for special purposes is sometimes re-routed to fund political campaigns.

This motion would allow only individual constituents the opportunity to make a political contribution to any legitimate party or nominated candidate to a limit of $5,000.

Elections are intended to democratically elect governments that best represent the desires of the people. We must not permit powerful individuals using other people's money to dominate the political agenda or the democratic process.

Limiting the amount any individual can contribute will give a truer representation of a political party's popular support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time believing what I just heard from the hon. member from the Reform Party.

The hon. member tells us that political party candidates should be restricted in the amounts they receive. However only days ago his leader advocated that non-political parties should have the right to campaign, to contest and to challenge MPs and others with no restrictions at all.

There is something wrong when that kind of mindset sets in. There are rules for MPs and there is no rule for the National Citizens Coalition to campaign against him and yet he has to be subject to rules far more strict than the ones we have already.

I have another difficulty with the propositions advanced by the member. He said in his opening remarks the larger the gift, the larger the price tag. That is an insult to every Canadian who contributes to the electoral process. No one is going to tell me that my constituents who are making $20,000 or $25,000 a year, who come to my annual fund raiser and give me $100 are doing it to get something in return. I do not think my constituents deserve to be insulted by the likes of that. Neither do the member's.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Nobody said that.

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

I was quoting the original remarks of the member from the Reform Party who just spoke-the larger the gift, the larger the price tag-referring to Canadians who gave their hard earned money to make sure that they have quality Canadians running for public office. No Canadians need to be insulted that way.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Qui te paie pour parler comme ça?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a couple of minutes to tell this House how I raised money during my election campaign or otherwise. There is an annual fund raiser in my constituency at which people contribute $100. Last year 400 people attended the event. Granted, it was an election year. Normally approximately 300 or 325 people show up for this event. Many Liberal MPs attend the function in question as well. I know people who have attended the event who make $15,000 a year. I also have three other events a year to which people come and pay $5 for a spaghetti dinner.

Then I hear the member from the Reform Party who just spoke making these kinds of broad accusations that everyone who contributed toward the political process is some sort of a sleazebag.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Shame.

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

Those comments on the part of the member should be withdrawn. People contribute toward the process because they want good government. People who contributed to the member's campaign felt that he would do a good job and I do not believe that his constituents had a self-interest in contributing or helping him to get elected. They wanted good government just like the people who contributed to getting me or you elected, Mr. Speaker. The same thing applies. They do not deserve to be insulted because they took their holidays to work on an election campaign or took a couple of days from their pay cheques to contribute or because they took 15 minutes of what they would have spent on their coffee breaks to contribute.

I go back to the rest of the issue at hand, the motion by the member for Richelieu.

The hon. member knows that the Lortie commission did in fact recommend that no restriction be put on contributions. Of course, there should always be restrictions on contributions from foreign sources, to ensure that the Canadian system remains accountable to Canadians. I agree with that.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The Conservatives did not agree with the proposition.