Debates of March 18th, 1994

Party Fundraising

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

We know that others did not agree with the proposition, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands just mentioned so appropriately and eloquently.

There is also the whole issue of the application of the charter to this kind of limitation.

Finally, I want to draw to the attention of this House how the application of such a rule as the member for Richelieu is advocating would be implemented.

We are aware that similar rules exist in some jurisdictions, for example at the provincial level in Ontario, where I used to be an MPP, as most of you know. That legislature puts a cap on contributions. However, if an individual wants to give more than the limit which, I believe, is set at $1,150 per year in Ontario, that person simply gives the extra money to his or her spouse or son, so as to circumvent the rule-

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member for Richelieu on a point of order.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just suggested that people from Ontario are dishonest. People from Ontario are not dishonest. They are not cheats.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

This is not a point of order, but this is leading to debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, as you have said it yourself, this is not a point of order. This is not even a good point, as the hon. member should know.

The point I want to make is that rules like this one, which can be so easily violated that it becomes absurd in a way, should never come into force.

I believe that it is more up to members of this House to stop saying that all those who contribute to a political system expect something in return, as was pointed out by the member from the Reform Party. However, I commend the member for Richelieu for putting the issue to the House. I know his intentions are honourable. He moved this motion because he too wants public standards of behaviour to be high.

Our party and our government made a commitment in this regard and, in the last few months, we noticed that Canadians realize that the government is there to serve them and not to serve its own interests.

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

True.

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

I would say the same about my colleagues opposite and I will say that the old ways of doing things are gone. Canadians got rid of all but two of those responsible for the situation we were in.

I would like to conclude by saying that I do not intend to support this motion. However, I congratulate the hon. member for Richelieu because I know that he meant well. But I want to warn all members of the House against making absurd accusations against people who want to contribute to the democratic process.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I support wholeheartedly this motion regarding the funding of political parties through individual contributions brought in this afternoon by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Richelieu.

I want to point out to the House that this is an historic moment since it is the first time that such a motion calling for federal political parties in Canada to be funded only through individual contributions is introduced in the House of Commons.

The concern of my colleague, the hon. member for Richelieu, for this issue is nothing new. He has been working on this initiative since 1988 and it is very important to him since 1988. He is convinced that attitudes have evolved and that Canadians are ready for a major change in the area of political party financing.

Canada, like other modern countries, must keep up with the times. It must follow the example set by the province of Quebec, which was not afraid to do away with questionable and anti-democratic electoral practices. It is obvious that the Constitutional Act, 1791, gave us not only a parliamentary system of government, but certain electoral practices as well.

History shows that individuals and organizations have always made self-serving contributions, giving a lot to control a lot. Even in its early days at the end of the 18th century parliamentarism had its champions of influence-peddling. Political parties and their sponsors would often offer an election favour to a hoodlum in exchange for beating up a stubborn voter.

There are numerous examples of notables who were in constant conflict of interest with political parties. A serious analysis will show that the the government's decisions were undoubtedly favourable to those who controlled the ruling party, who controlled democracy as the member for Richelieu said so well.

Mr. Speaker, it has to be recognized, and the House will agree, that election mores and practices have changed in Canada.

Indeed some practices have disappeared while others remain. Some new practices meet obstacles, namely the financing of political parties by voters only. This would concern the whole electoral system.

Not so long ago I was a young man living a quiet life in the small town of Coleraine located in the beautiful riding of Frontenac. My father, a well-known businessman and experienced merchant was a Liberal Party member and organizer. Of course, that was back in the 1940s and 1950s and at that time, the Bloc Quebecois did not exist as a political party in Quebec. My father had a decisive influence on me and I inherited from him my interest in politics. The only thing I could have faulted him

for at the time, given the political experience I now have, would of course be that he was a Liberal.

At the time, I had been amazed by some electineering tactics that Liberal organizers were practising in the riding of Megantic, Quebec. It took me some time to understand the connection between a refrigerator or a Bélanger electrical stove and a constituent. Later on I understood the meaning of the slogan: "Give the party a buck and you will get it back with a 1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000 per cent interest".

I have seen this with my own eyes, Mr. Speaker. I know what I am talking about. However, in 1994, these days are gone. This should not exist any more, and my colleague, the hon. member for Richelieu, expressed it very well when he proposed in his motion a principle that should allow constituents to control our electoral system and thus respect democracy and become the true possessors of that democracy.

The urgency of reform is recognized by every party. The previous speaker on the government side did say that his party was considering a reform of funding for political parties, but we will see how much courage they show and, especially, how fast they act. Will we have a committee or a sub-committee? I am anxious to see.

In November 1988, the leader of the Conservative Party, Brian Mulroney, promised to bring in public financing of political parties. Recognizing the effectiveness of Quebec's legislation on this subject, Mr. Mulroney thought it necessary to end financial contributions from corporations and unions.

For some time, people have been talking about credibility and trust and the government and the governing party are talking more and more about openness. We will see. Now is the time to prove this openness. They remember the sorry errors committed by members of the former government. They remember the conflicts of interest, the resignations, the dismissals and so on.

There must be no hesitation when the integrity of the government is at stake and especially when the integrity of Parliament is at stake. This House must show exemplary honesty. Those who have been elected to lead the nation must show the way. Very early in his first mandate, René Lévesque understood the need to clean up election practices by forbidding any corporation to contribute to the election fund of political parties. The 1977 Quebec Bill, to which several of my colleagues have referred, remains a model of financing by the people and of how to clean up the electoral system itself.

Those who doubt that it can work need only come to Quebec to see how it works. As was just said, the Quebec Liberal Party has collected much more just from the voters in Quebec than the Liberal Party of Canada has collected in that province from big companies, banks, etc.

In 1977, the press at the time was categorical and here I quote from La Presse : ``Although the Parti Quebecois has rushed the process, this legislation is absolutely necessary; it is shaking up fund-raisers, upsetting many vested interests and destroying hidden influences that are unhealthy for the proper functioning of democracy''. What was true in Quebec in 1977 is even more so in Canada in 1994. This motion means the end of slush funds and of influence peddling and the beginning of healthy democracy.

I close on this point: public financing remains the way of the future for our political parties. The present government must be concerned about it and accept the motion of the member for Richelieu. Canadian democracy-I repeat-Canadian democracy will be much better for it.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

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.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 98(1) the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence.

Before closing the day, I know the member for Mission-Coquitlam is seeking the floor. A few weeks ago, if I recall correctly, she shared with us the good news that she was expecting to be a grandmother. I wonder if she could bring us up to date on that matter before we adjourn for the rest of the week.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker. I have a seventh grandchild. He is a boy. His name is David Michael Jennings. He weighed in at 9 pounds, 5 ounces.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 2.55 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.55 p.m.)