Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great intensity to the debate, both in the lobby when I had some phone business to do and in the House as much as I could.
I am here today because I am very interested in the motion of the hon. member for Richelieu. It affects all of us in the House. There is not a member sitting here who is not affected by the issue. If there is any issue that affects us all, it is this one.
I come here with an open mind. I have listened attentively and objectively to the arguments that have been put forth on both sides of the House. Quite frankly I take a certain comfort in my view of democracy. We have already studied the issue. We have looked at the issue. We have looked at other alternatives. To analyse it properly, as I understand the motion of the hon. member for Richelieu there are two aspects to it. One is that the donation should be made by an individual. The second is that the donation should be not more than $5,000.
The Lortie commission looked at the whole business of contribution to parties. In the last Parliament it was studied with great seriousness and was the focus of an awful lot of discussion both in committee and in the House.
In the hon. member's opinion his view of the world and democracy would improve the situation. The only reason for putting forward his private member's bill is to provide another form of control of the business of electioneering in Canada. As I say, we have already looked at this item and it has been studied.
There are existing controls on contributions and spending with respect to federal elections. Probably the greatest one is the very clear and explicit directions to members of Parliament and candidates on (a) how much they can spend, (b) how they can spend it, (c) the maximum limit that they can use to the cent and (d) how that has to be accounted for. If we are looking for
control, how money is spent in an election is very clearly defined.
There is another aspect which does not necessarily pertain only to the responsibility of the candidate, that is that a donation has to be reported. Any donation over $100 to a federal political organization has to be reported publicly. I feel fairly confident that with those two measures in place, if the hon. member's intent was to be concerned about control, there is excellent control. I do not think we need any more control. I have already raised the point that this has been studied democratically, debated democratically and decided on democratically.
There are other aspects as well. If we are to agree with and to approve what the hon. member is suggesting, there are other aspects we must look at. We cannot take the bill in its singularity and in isolation of other aspects.
The following aspects have been looked at. I am referring now to the source of donations, the amount of donations and other contributions to parties and their candidates, the definition of election expenses, limits on third party expenditures and tax deductions. If we open the door again we have to open it fully.
The underlying current I have heard alluded to a couple of times is very disturbing. The concern, somewhat obliquely stressed, is that there is a return other than the participation in democracy. I find that quite antagonizing. I find it disruptive. I do not find it democratic. I have not seen in my time in politics a return in any form other than the election of a member to represent people.
As one of the 295 members of the House I find it quite offensive for one of my hon. colleagues to suggest that those people who give freely of their time, their money and their resources do so for any other reason than to contribute to the democracy of this great country.
To summarize, I have taken into consideration the points made by the other side of the House, some of which are good points. However I come down on the side of saying that I do not see any compelling argument for me to support the bill as it stands or if it were considered in the larger context.