Debates of Dec. 6th, 1995

Political Party Fundraising

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the hon. member's motion. At the same time, I regret having to do so because if this hon. member of the government feels the need to table such a motion, it is because his own government has failed to honour its red book commitments, the commitments it made in the last election campaign.

There is no cause for alarm, however. If the hon. member looks carefully at the government's record of the past two years, he will

see that it has broken all its commitments, whether they have to do with social programs, defence policy or the red book.

The fact that a Liberal backbencher has to remind his own government that it had promised to thoroughly review political party funding shows how lightly this government takes its election commitments.

In the matter under consideration, the red book promises to restore voters' confidence, promote integrity in political institutions, and limit conflicts of interest and influence peddling through an in depth review of political party funding.

This wish is reflected in the motion. Except that, in March 1994, I launched a debate that made it to third reading, a private member's motion saying that political parties ought to be funded by the public, that they should only be funded by people who have the right to vote, which would exclude institutions, corporations, unions, non-profit and for-profit associations.

Although this would be a guarantee of democracy and openness, the vast majority of the hon. member's fellow Liberals voted against it, because their party is no different from the one it replaced. As they say in Quebec, they must look after their buddies after the election. They must return the favour to the big engineering and architectural firms, to the big banking institutions for funding them and helping them get elected.

In this area as in many others, the government has refused to honour its commitments by enacting bills or amending existing legislation.

The motion before us is nothing but wishful thinking. What is wishful thinking but decisions that have not been implemented in practice. The hon. member's motion is nothing but wishful thinking. He knows full well that his government is not interested in changing the system, because it is, to a very large extent, financed by multinationals and private interests, as was the Conservative government.

His motion should have proposed a concrete measure, instead of saying "the government should consider the advisability of reviewing and reforming funding for political parties". It should have said: "We will change this or that to the funding of political parties, for example by authorizing public financing, that is by allowing contributions only from those who have the right to vote. That would have been a concrete measure, instead of merely expressing an interest to reconsider the existing system. The member acts exactly like the Conservative government, when it tried to distance itself from its 1988 election commitment.

At the time, Prime Minister Mulroney pledged, one week before the election, to implement public financing for political parties. I remember seeing a front page article in La Presse . But what did he do after that? He set up a committee, the Lortie commission, which cost $20 million and produced a report with recommendations that were taken into consideration neither by the Conservative, nor by the Liberal governments.

If you want the true solution to the problem of political party funding, look at how things are done in Quebec. But let us be honest and recognize that some steps were made in the last 20 years, such as the granting of a tax credit. Twenty years ago, 95 per cent of the financing came from companies. The tax receipt now delivered to corporations and individuals resulted in a 40 per cent drop in contributions made by corporations. This is a first step. Some provinces also took action to limit interference in the government machinery associated with political contributions. All political parties talk about bringing in reforms, but no one takes concrete action. The Liberal party reminds us of those old parties.

Let us not forget also that putting the funding of political parties in order is in line with the Criminal Code. Section 121 of the Criminal Code clearly states that it is an offence to attempt to obtain a special privilege in return for a financial contribution. A good many departments must be nervous about certain contributions.

Reforming political fundraising is not only in keeping with the Criminal Code, it also reflects the public's desire for openness and transparency. Voters now want the people they elect to Ottawa to know whom they are there to serve. They want their elected representatives there to serve the common good and not the interests of a privileged few. They want the individual who has contributed $20 to receive as much respect from elected members as the company that has contributed $50,000.

They want, too, for funds to be collected according to clearly defined standards and used to serve all, not a privileged few. This is a way to perpetuate our democracy as it is faced with the threat of huge multinationals and heavy backers of political parties.

By placing grossroots fundraising at the service of democracy and the political parties, we place the focus on the voter. We also oblige the parties to come closer to the voters and to be concerned with their needs, since they are the ones who will be providing our funds.

More value will be assigned to membership in a political party. It also develops a feeling of pride in belonging to a political party they help to support. It also increases the democratic vigour of a society and obliges the party to decentralize its decision-making. As we come closer to achieving grassroots financing, democracy as it is experienced in Quebec and Canada becomes a great and noble undertaking that starts reflecting the true meaning of democracy and openness.

In concluding, I think the following puts it in a nutshell: tell me by whom you are financed and I will tell you whom you serve. That is more or less what we can learn from this discussion on the motion before the House today.

I also wish to pay tribute to the hon. member who within his own party had the courage to realize the extent to which his party and the traditional party system are at the beck and call of certain corporations and privileged contributors instead of being there to serve all citizens.

His suggestion that $1 be contributed per voter to the existing parties, a proposal inspired by a professor from New Brunswick, is admirable but would prevent the creation of new political parties. For instance, could the Reform Party or the Bloc Quebecois, two parties who came out of the last election, have been born without this contribution?

My point is that government financing might, by helping to maintain existing parties, prevent other ideas, structures and political groups from developing. So there is considerable hesitation and there are in fact many question marks about the suggestion.

However, I hope that by discussing these issues, we can perhaps make the Liberal Party understand that even within its own ranks some thorough changes are in order. And they will have to come in the form of grassroots financing of political parties.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, when I looked at Motion No. 367 I could certainly agree in a general sense with the thrust of the motion. It reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of reviewing and reforming funding for political parties.

The only problem I have with the wording is that it is a little bit vague. It says "consider the advisability of". It is a pity that the member had not worded his motion "that in the opinion of this House the government should review and reform funding for political parties". That would have been a lot clearer and a bit more forceful in its thrust.

I see that the motion is non-votable and it reminds me that this one hour of debate is fairly meaningless. I wish for the hon. member's sake that it could be a votable motion so that at least members could express their opinions on this issue.

What I would like to do before I continue with my speech, Madam Speaker, is to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make this motion votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is absolutely amazing. The member's own colleagues are denying him the right to have a votable motion. The member spent some time talking about the importance of democracy in political parties and he cannot even get the consent of his colleagues to allow a vote on that motion in the House. It is certainly a symptom of the way the government runs its affairs.

In a general sense I agree with the motion. I would like to read the Reform Party policy on funding of political parties. In the blue book policy which was developed and passed by our members it says: "The Reform Party opposes any assistance to political parties and political lobbies from public funds, including any refund of candidate or party expenses, government advertising during the electoral period, the renting of parliamentary staff for reimbursement, tax credits for contributions to federal political parties and the transfer of tax credits to leadership campaigns, to nomination campaigns or to parties at the provincial or municipal level".

It can be seen that we have a rather comprehensive policy. It stems from the way that we had to build our party.

I heard the hon. member from the Bloc talking about the difficulty of building a new party. We had to build our party from the ground up, from nothing, with not a single cent. I was there almost from the beginning, from late 1987. In fact, one of the people who is now on my executive committee in the riding association was one of the original signatories to the charter of the Reform Party.

We had to raise money by having bake sales, by having garage sales, by walking door to door asking for $10 here and $1 there. It was worth it. It is tremendously fulfilling to be able to build a party that way. If something is not worth working for, it is not worth having.

In that respect I disagree with the member's position that the state should fund parties because it is unfair to people who cannot afford to contribute. If it is not worth working for, it is not worth having.

Even though the Reform Party and even the Bloc started from way behind with tremendous disadvantages, it is tremendously fulfilling to be able to build a party from the ground up.

The hon. member stated that the present system is unfair to people who cannot afford to contribute. No, it is not. People who cannot afford to contribute can work as volunteers and help. Perhaps they can even be fund raisers. I do not think the present system is unfair at all.

Although the hon. member for Gatineau has a formula which he claims would be democratic and fair, when I look at his formula I see that there is a component that would give an equal amount of money to each party but then there is a component that gives some money based on the share of the vote in the previous election. Obviously that is an unfair advantage to the party that is in power. That is not reflected in a democratic way of the support levels at the

time of the next election. That is a major flaw in the approach that has been proposed by the member from Gatineau. All that does is give the government side an advantage so it can spin its propaganda and cover up its lack of interest in the political will of the people between elections.

The government very clearly demonstrates it has no interest in the people's opinions between elections. I do not think it is going to take this member's motion seriously because it is simply not interested in getting the public involved.

It was obvious when members opposite refused to make this motion votable that they were not interested in democracy at all. If they were interested in democracy, they would take notice of people and their opinions on the Young Offenders Act. They have done nothing to make it more effective.

If you ask people anywhere in the country if their streets are safer than they were two years ago when the government was elected, they say no. All the polls indicate that people sense that things are much more dangerous than they were then.

On Indian land claims, the government does not give a darn what B.C. MPs have stated about what is happening in B.C. They simply do not care what the people of B.C. think. We could talk about the employment equity bill and the way that was forced through the House and the lack of democracy in the way the government works.

Frankly, I often tell my constituents that if members came here just once a year for 15 minutes, put all the bills for the year on the table and took one vote, the outcome would be exactly the same. This is a place of parties, rather than-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Could I ask the hon. member about the relevance of his comments to the private member's bill?

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, what I am trying to relate it to is the fact that the member opposite wants to institute some sort of democratic support of parties. I am trying to point out that the government side is not interested in anything democratic. Its members will not vote for the motion. They will not allow it to be voted on because they are not interested in democracy. They want to pursue their political agenda, their party agenda.

If Madam Speaker would feel more comfortable with me getting more closely aligned to the motion, I am certainly prepared to do so.

I support the idea that the government should review and reform the funding for political parties, but not along the lines suggested by the member. I would rather see the House get involved in the Reform Party proposal, which is to make the support of political parties depend entirely on the money they can raise from the people they purport to represent.

After all, political parties are nothing more than special interest groups. At the moment, political parties are special interest groups that have a special advantage because the donations they receive are tax deductible with a premium. They are much better than the tax deductibility for any other type of charity or special interest.

The politicians of the past have chosen to give themselves an advantage over everybody else who has to raise money from the public. Members of the Reform Party feel that the political parties should have to raise their money from the people they purport to represent and that the money should not be tax deductible. It should be truly money that is given in support of that party.

As I said earlier, if it is not worth working for something, it is not worth having. It is certainly worth working to build a political party.

Reform also disagrees with the idea that these election rebates go back to candidates and parties. All it does is perpetuate the public paying for special interest groups that they may not have any interest in supporting whatsoever. Clearly this is anti-democratic, not democratic, as the member would like us to believe.

In summing up, I would like to repeat one more time the Reform Party's position on this type of motion. I will read that policy one more time.

The Reform Party opposes any assistance to political parties and political lobbies from public funds, including any refund of candidate or party expenses, government advertising during the electoral period, the renting of parliamentary staff for reimbursement, tax credits for contributions to federal political parties and the transfer of tax credits to leadership campaigns, to nomination campaigns or to parties at the provincial or municipal levels.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lièvre for bringing this motion before the House for debate. It is a useful topic for debate and I am glad we have this opportunity for discussion.

However, listening to the hon. member for North Vancouver, it was one of the most extraordinary things I have heard in a while.

He came out with this policy of the Reform Party which is another case of do as I say but not as I do policies Reform spouts so often in the House.

We all know that during the last election the members of the Reform Party scooped their hands into the public till. Although they abhor the idea of public financing of elections, they all applied for the rebate they were entitled to get from the federal government. Then their party applied for its 22.5 per cent reimbursement which it is entitled to get from the federal treasury. The members had no reluctance about going after that money to the best of my recollection.

Now they say their policy is they will not take that kind of money. Yet according to the rumours I hear they have fundraisers from time to time. They issue tax receipts for those fundraisers the way other parties do even though they say their policy is they do not do that.

They say that is their policy but they do exactly the opposite. They do as much as any other party does to take advantage of the laws of Canada that give political parties advantage. Frankly, they ought to do that but not if they are saying their policy is different. It is what I would call hypocrisy, but I think it unparliamentary for me to say that a member of the House is hypocritical or a hypocrite. I would not do that. However, the Reform Party policy is very hypocritical on this matter.

Those members use the money in the most unorthodox ways like paying suit allowances of $30,000 a year to their leader so he can be properly dressed while he gives up the publicly paid car.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know what this has to do with the motion before the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary is getting to the point. We will not have to wait much longer.

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed we will not because I am talking about electoral financing, which is what the motion concerns. The hon. member may have missed the point since he got on about young offenders and so on. I am trying to address my remarks to the subject matter of the motion which is, after all, electoral financing, but that may have escaped him. His remarks seemed to be all over the place.

The other thing he should know is his colleague and our very good friend, the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest, introduced a bill dealing with electoral financing which is currently being studied by the procedure and House affairs committee which I have the honour to chair. I know the bill is going to come up next Tuesday. It is going back on the agenda for consideration in the committee.

Does this bill abolish public financing of parties? No, it does not. It eliminates funding for parties that get less than a certain percentage of the vote but it will continue it for everybody else. I believe there has been some agreement reached between the hon. member and members of the other parties which improves the situation somewhat. However, I do not know what the final result is and I would not presume to discuss the final details of the bill not knowing them.

I think the hon. member for North Vancouver ought to be aware that the policy of his party which he spouted with such apparent sincerity is being ignored quite blissfully by the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest in the bill he has presented to Parliament and which now he is pressing my committee to report back to the House on so he can pass it.

I hope the hon. member for North Vancouver is here in the House to support his colleague's bill when it comes to a vote. It is a votable item and he will have that privilege. I am looking forward to seeing what he says because here he reads the policy on the one hand and he will get a chance to vote for the policy by voting against his friend's bill. We will see what happens then.

The Liberals on my committee are supporting the bill as are the members of the Bloc Quebecois. They have good sense. The hon. member for North Vancouver would do well to learn from his colleague, the member for Edmonton Southwest, and scrap the ridiculous policy he says his party members have voted in. I find it quite extraordinary. Let me turn to the motion before the House.

The Canada Elections Act provides for the reimbursement of a portion of election expenses incurred by registered political parties. Specifically, a registered party is entitled to a reimbursement of 22.5 per cent of the expenses declared in its return provided it spends at least 10 per cent of the election limit.

Some of us have criticized this because we feel it encourages parties to spend money in order to collect the reimbursement. If they do not spend up to 10 per cent of the expenditure limit they do not get any reimbursement. Therefore they must spend like crazy to get there. It can be a fairly substantial limit, as hon. members know. They then get back 22.5 per cent of their expenses so that once they hit the limit it is basically a 75 cent dollar they have put out.

There is no limit on the amount that can be contributed to a registered political party but there is a limit on the amount that can be spent.

The Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing recommended that registered parties receive at least 1 per cent of the votes cast in an election before they are entitled to any reimbursement and then receive 60 cents per vote received for a maximum of 50 per cent of election expenses. They could not get more than 50 per cent of their expenses back under this system.

In the last Parliament we had a special committee on electoral reform which considered the matter but did not agree with the Lortie recommendation. I was a member of that committee. I believe I am the only one left in the House. The others have moved on to other things.

We reviewed the report and recommended that the 10 per cent expenditure requirement be applied to a party's direct election expenses and that the rate of reimbursement be increased to 25 per cent of direct expenses, a very modest change from the present law.

I do not mind saying the reason we could not agree on anything else was that we ran into a stone wall with the Conservative majority, which saw that its electoral chances were failing. Those members realized that if they went to a 60 cent per vote arrangement, as recommended by the Lortie commission, they would get very little money if their vote fell out the bottom, as the polls at that time indicated they would. That is exactly what happened. Had we had that rule in place the Conservative Party would have been worse than bankrupt. It is in trouble now but it would have been much worse; the rule significantly helped it in the last election.

The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest has proposed a bill that would eliminate reimbursement for parties that gain less than 2 per cent of the national vote. He is going to change that because he has received agreement from the other parties to make changes. I do not know what the changes are so I do not want to go on about his bill.

Now we have a proposal from the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lièvre. I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest, being a generous spirited individual, has looked at other possibilities. I know he has because he has had suggestions made to him in the course of the committee proceedings where he had the advantage of hearing from other members. He said that all makes sense, let us make some more changes. He is making more changes and I commend him for that. I am looking forward to seeing the bill in its possibly final form when it rolls out of the committee possibly next week. If that happens we will all have the benefit of that and perhaps it will make the motion of the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lièvre unnecessary.

However, we are dealing with his motion today. It is not a votable motion despite the efforts of the hon. member for North Vancouver and so we will have to deal with it as it stands. We will have a discussion about it and then go on to something else.

The hon. members opposite, although genuine in their desire for reform, do not agree on how they should go about it. They are making efforts to raise the level of debate by discussing these things and I respect that, particularly by the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest. It looks to me as though he has a speech coming up and I am looking forward to hearing his remarks.

The point is how to solve this problem. I do not know the answer but I do think the Lortie commission report is worth looking at again. The point of it was to ensure parties get reimbursed based on the number of votes they receive. Another possibility is to have a pot such as that suggested by the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lièvre and have a fixed amount of money available in accordance with the limits on election spending and then divide the fixed amount among the parties that participate in the election based on the number of votes they receive.

I believe there is general agreement that no party should get more than 50 per cent of its expenses reimbursed so that it would prevent some party that won more than half of the vote from getting more than half the money available. That strikes me as fair and reasonable.

However, I do not think that is what has been put forward today and we need to look at that kind of proposal in greater detail. We need to look at it with respect to the charter of rights and freedoms because, as we know, there have been challenges to the expenditure limits on parties and on others, third parties in particular not participating in elections.

All those issues will concern the procedure and House affairs committee as it undertakes the review of the Canada Elections Act, which I hope it will be doing soon. No doubt at that time it will consider the very worthwhile proposal put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lièvre.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would, first off, like to pay tribute to the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre for tabling this motion. Although very timid for a party like the Bloc Quebecois, the motion is revolutionary for the Liberal Party of Canada.

For the benefit of those watching us, I will take the liberty of rereading the motion:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of reviewing and reforming funding for political parties.

It is very little. In fact, it is almost lip service. However, when I looked in the May 6, 1994, issue of Hansard , I found words, in the context of a similar debate, that were quite surprising coming from a federal Liberal. I will quote some of them.

"I maintain, and I am not the only one, that the way political parties are funded leaves much to be desired". A certain former prime minister currently under investigation is suing the Government of Canada. If we had a good policy on funding

political parties in this country, I am sure this sort of situation would not arise.

For over two years now, Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in your company in this place. The people in my riding claim my salary is high. But, for me to become a millionaire in politics, someone will have to augment my monthly income.

And yet, I know people who have done nothing but politics and who are said to be millionaires tens of times over. They probably know how to manage their pay better than I do.

I would, however, like to quote in passing a few extracts from the speech by my colleague for Gatineau-La Lièvre. I remind you that he went to the right school, my colleague for Gatineau-La Lièvre, because he sat in Quebec's National Assembly. He said:

No companies, no legal, architectural or engineering firms. We all know the gamut of contributors to party funds. There is no need to elaborate. I do not think that large contributions are made out of love for democracy. We must absolutely look at this issue. I say this as the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre.

The text I have just quoted is on page 4019 of the House of Commons Debates for May 6, 1994.

Clearly the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre knows what he is talking about, because I took the liberty of checking with the office of the returning officer to see how the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre financed his electoral campaign in 1993. These figures are official, and anyone can go and check them with Elections Canada. In this member's case, individual contributions totalled $15,168, which represents 55 per cent of his financing, and corporate contributions amounted to $12,311, or 44 per cent.

I also took the liberty of checking in the riding of Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's riding. Individual contributions accounted for only 25 per cent, whereas corporate contributions accounted for 33 per cent. One union contributed $5,500, and, obviously, funds were transferred to him from his party, given that he was in their good graces.

Obviously, when we know who is funding the party in power, we can think about their intentions. On October 3, 1994, the Quebec City paper Le Soleil ran a headline to the effect that the Liberal and Conservative parties could thank major corporations for funding the political parties. I will give you a few examples. Listen carefully, Mr. Speaker, I think this is worthwhile.

The largest contribution was to the Conservative Party in the amount of $216,000. It was made by a company recorded only as T'ANG Management Limited. Give me one good reason why this company gave $216,000 to the Conservative Party, led by Ms. Campbell. Give me one single reason. The member for Gatineau-La Lièvre said in May 1994 that it certainly was not out of love for democracy.

If it is not out of love for democracy, does it fly in the face of this democracy? In the red book, the party opposite me made the commitment to change the way political parties were funded. Brian Mulroney decided to do the same thing a week before the 1988 elections. He did nothing.

In the Conservative Party, there was a member as courageous as the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre, François Gérin, the former member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. Not only did he advocate that political parties should be funded exclusively by voters, he applied this principle, rejecting any contribution from law, engineering or architectural firms, businesses, large or small, or unions. Unfortunately the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre did not do the same in 1993 since he accepted quite generous contributions from corporations of his riding and elsewhere.

This morning, the Royal Bank of Canada announced net profits of $1.3 billion. Why do banks make that much money? Because they have connections in government. By feeding Grits and Tories alike, they are not taking any chance. They are sure to be on the right side and to have favourable laws. For instance, the Royal Bank of Canada gave $88,700 to the Liberal Party and $85,300 to the Conservatives in 1993. Banks are not taking any chance.

Do you think that this party is serious about modernizing political funding? What was this same party doing just six weeks ago in Quebec? It flouted Quebec democracy by throwing money left and right three days before the referendum to arrange a big love-in. This nearly reached the no side's spending limit. Unfortunately it will not be accounted for. All they will get is a $10,000 fine.

They paid the salary of civil servants and teachers for that day. They closed schools and offices to allow civil servants in Hull and Ottawa to go to Montreal so they could show their affection, which lasted for an hour or so. Democracy was not respected in Quebec on that day. Some no side posters were even put up illegally.

The Reform Party is not without guilt either. It will be remembered that, in 1993, they accepted $25,000 from the Canadian Pacific and $10,000 from John Labatt. Naturally the sums were more modest but the corporations knew that the Reform Party had no chance whatsoever of coming to power. The Liberals had a heyday and they welcomed the opportunity. I hope the Prime Minister will not be prosecuted or come under investigation 4, 5, 6

or 10 years from now. If we believe in democracy, we must make a certain effort.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in respecting the tradition of the House, I will make my comments very brief to give the member an opportunity to wind up, if that is the pleasure of the House.

I want to say a few words to this particular bill. As the House knows and as has been made very clear by the member for Kingston and the Islands, I have a bill before committee that speaks also to election financing. I commend my hon. colleague opposite for bringing this question to the House.

I am not speaking in favour of this bill. It does not provide the respect to emerging parties that it should. That has already been covered by others. It does not pay respect to new ideas and to parties that may never in fact elect anybody but do bring new and fresh ideas into the body politic of Canada. That is extremely important to our political discourse as a nation. And this bill does not respect performance. In my view, it is absolutely essential that performance be respected and rewarded. No matter what their historical significance, parties that do not resonate with the people should not be rewarded.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands went to great lengths to point out the contradiction in my presenting a bill to the House that would affect election financing that does not speak directly to the party policy. I want to make it clear, so that everyone understands, that my bill is incremental. The notion and the reason behind my bill is that it will save the taxpayers of Canada $1 million or so. In my books, saving $1 million or so is particularly important. In particular, the measures in that bill would ensure that political parties are rewarded only if they have resonance within the body politic of Canada, that political parties are not rewarded merely because they have the resources to spend money.

I have listened to the debate this afternoon. I think this debate is particularly important. When I started to investigate election financing I noticed that if you measured the number of books they would be approximately eight or nine inches high. These are all books about election financing in Canada.

The point the hon. member from the Bloc raised about making sure the political process in Canada is kept as free as is humanly possible from any taint of scandal or influence peddling is one of the reasons I have come around to the view that there is much we can learn from the way the province of Quebec handles financial donations in that province.

I thank the House very much for the opportunity to speak. Once again I congratulate my hon. colleague opposite for bringing this very important debate to the House.

I concur with my hon. friend from North Vancouver who lamented that this was not a votable bill so we could see where all the dogs lie on this particular issue.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I understand that the hon. member for Gatineau-La lièvre has already spoken to the motion.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau—La Lièvre, QC]

How much time do we have left, Mr. Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There are still a few minutes left. Under the right of reply, I am ready to give the floor to the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lièvre. However, I give notice to the House that he will be the last one to speak to the motion.

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau—La Lièvre, QC]

How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Usually, under such circumstances, the House agrees to allow about two minutes for the member to close the debate.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau—La Lièvre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, I will not have enough time to refute some of the objections raised during the debate on this motion.

According to my research, I could prove that there are much fewer flaws in this proposal than in the present system. This, I hope, will be the subject of another debate, at some other time.

I would have liked my colleagues in the House to realize that this is not a "revolutionary" idea, contrary to what one of my colleagues from the Bloc quebecois said. I believe it to be plain common sense.

It is indeed an idea I have been promoting for many years, including in the National Assembly, when I had the honour of serving my fellow citizens at the provincial level. I raised the issue of funding for political parties in 1974. This is not something I became interested in last week.

I have seen the trend and the many scandals surrounding funding for political parties.

The idea I am presenting today is very simple. I am asking for a debate, not only among members of this House, who can settle the issue, but also in the public at large.

You know, I did just that. I asked several people: "Do you believe that the current way of funding political parties is democratic and fair or that there is favouritism or that there are slush funds?" Most people would say: "Do you think I am a nitwit? We do not believe that the system is fair and equitable. Far from it."

If you ask ten people, at least nine will tell you that the system is rotten to the core. So, the time has come to examine the way political parties are funded. It is not necessary to adopt the exact system that I am proposing. A University of New Brunswick professor who did his doctorate on the subject studied this. I consulted him and exchanged information with him. His studies demonstrated that the most democratic way is to let the public at large fund political parties.

That is not complicated; perhaps it is even too simple. This is too often what happens when something is too simple: it is difficult to get it accepted.

In concluding, this is a beginning. We must hope that other groups that are interested in our society will realize that the funding of political parties is fundamental in a democracy, and we cannot allow big multinationals or people with a lot of money to be the most important backers of political parties. This is paramount in our democracy.

Let us hope then that this is a beginning, because the data that I have can easily demonstrate that this would be the most equitable system, one which would not cost more to the state, not a cent more than it is costing today.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96, this item is dropped from the Order Paper.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of this motion on behalf of the people of Guelph-Wellington.

Canada has always been a nation of ordeals and of triumphs. This country was tied together with the railroad when some said it could not be done. It answered the call of peace and freedom in both world wars when some said that our country was too small to make a difference.

We have held together a nation of difficult climate with unbelievable vastness and extreme beauty. I am confident that we can turn the ordeal of the 1995 referendum into another triumph for our country.

This motion reminds us that it is the responsibility of the people elected to this national assembly to do what is right for Canada. The people of Guelph-Wellington know that this sometimes means that we recognize the obvious.

On October 27, 1995 residents of Guelph-Wellington joined the Canadian family in Montreal in a crusade for Canada. This crusade did not end when the buses returned. It did not end on referendum day when my constituents completed their prayers at Dublin Street United Church in Guelph. It did not end when the signatures dried on the petitions of love and affection signed by the students of the Wellington County Separate School Board. This crusade has not ended in the hearts of the people of Guelph-Wellington and all across Canada.

Their crusade is about promises to be kept, relationships to be strengthened and a nation that continues to be built. We owe it to the people who boarded buses at 3 a.m. on October 27. We owe it to the people who voted no on October 30 and we owe it to every Canadian who loves this country and feels an attachment to its support and support this motion.

The people of Guelph-Wellington are discouraged by members of political parties that believe they were elected to celebrate division and welcome the negative. They know that the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party were not at the rally on October 27. They are aware that while one party works toward separation, the other is anxious to demand that the terms of the break-up of this country be staked out, almost like vultures.

Never before has the difference between the government and the opposition parties been clearer. The Liberal government reminds Canadians that there is a lot to be thankful for. The Bloc and Reform Party find much to complain about every day. We are the crusaders. They are the destroyers.

We seek to unite but they seek to divide. The Prime Minister said in the House on November 29 that the spirit of co-operation and partnership that inspires us should motivate us to continue building this great country in an atmosphere of generosity and respect. What the Prime Minister is proposing is both reasonable and prudent. In voting in favour of this motion, we are representing the best interests of all Canadians in the context of all that is good for Canada.

The people of Guelph-Wellington are proud of their past and they know that we can acknowledge Quebec's distinctiveness because they are confident of our future. They look to the members of the House to build bridges, not to create gulfs.

We can give regional vetoes without destroying the fabric of our nation. We need not be afraid. The history of the community that I represent is a strong one because we have been successful when we all work together. There is no question the referendum was a

difficult experience for the people of Guelph-Wellington and for all people across Canada. In the process, our patience has been strained, but our determination to make this country work has not weakened.

My constituents are telling me to rise above the leaders of division and speak directly to the people of Canada, the Canadian family that lives in Quebec, in British Columbia and every community across Canada. They believe that the options presented by the Prime Minister are better than those offered by the Bloc and by the Reform Party. We have a vision of unity and we have a vision of peace.

We want the government to continue on its agenda of jobs and growth. They know that a united Canada means more employment, economic stability and a stronger country for their children and their grandchildren. Their message to me is to get on with it and keep the promises made to Quebecers before the referendum. Ignore those who want to destroy Canada. They want their affection for Quebec to be heard and they want Quebecers to know that we have all succeeded in Confederation, every one of us.

The central question that must be answered is: How can we turn the ordeal of October 30 into a triumph for all Canadians? I do not believe this can be done by being closed, intolerant and narrow. We should always remember those who prayed, wrote, called, marched and rallied for our country during the days prior to the referendum. Triumph calls for inner strength. It calls us to put away our differences. It rises above fear and it rises above frustration.

We are the only elected body that can speak for all Canadians. This country was not built because our leaders reminded us of what is wrong. Canada is the best country in the world. Our Prime Minister can rise with pride to tell us that he is a proud Canadian and a proud Quebecer.

I am proud of my community of Guelph-Wellington. I have said here before that I believe it is the best community in Canada. In Guelph-Wellington, we are crusaders for this nation. We see the rally in Montreal as the beginning, not an end. We see this motion as another step in nation building. We are proud of our community and proud of our province, but we are first and foremost Canadians.

It was a Quebecer, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said that the 20th century belongs to Canada. It was another Quebecer, our Prime Minister, who said on October 27 that with this motion and other actions by the government, this country will enter the 21st century strong and united.

Guelph-Wellington residents want nothing more than a united and a strong Canada. They helped build our nation. They have love for family and community. They work hard and they want us to do what is right for Canada. They are Canadians first.

This motion is about change, change not for the sake of change, but change for the betterment of Canada. The people of Guelph-Wellington are confident Canadians. They know we can recognize the obvious, we can give regional vetoes and we can be centralized government without losing our nation. They know that the negative political parties will vote against this motion, but they also know that Canada will not be defeated. Canada has had its share of ordeals, but we have always triumphed.

As they left their buses in Montreal on October 27, the people from my riding were handed a message from Quebecers. I hope members of the Bloc are listening to this. This is the message that my people were handed on October 27 from Quebecers. It says: "Quebecers would like to thank you for your support, your love and your encouragement. We appreciate this unselfish act and we thank you from the bottom of our hearts. God bless this country and all its citizens. We thank you."

I have read and re-read this message many times. This motion is for the author of that message and for everyone who believes in Canada.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to speak on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton West to this extremely important motion tabled by the right hon. Prime Minister.

During and after the Quebec referendum the Prime Minister assured us that he would adequately address the clear demand for meaningful change within the federation. The Prime Minister is keeping his word to the people of Canada.

Like many of my colleagues on this side of the House, I am joining this debate in the Canadian spirit of conciliation, compromise and goodwill. At a time when various groups throughout the world are killing one another as a result of neo-nationalism, how typically Canadian for the federal government to address hard core neo-nationalist angst within the relatively calm and cool context of parliamentary debate.

The day before yesterday during debate on government Motion No. 27, we debated the recent Dayton peace agreement and Canadian support for the international community's continued efforts to bring enduring peace and security to the Balkans through participation in a multinational military implementation force under NATO command.

The significance of these two motions should not be lost on the members of the House. How typically Canadian for us to be so devoted to the maintenance of peace and security throughout the war torn regions of the world as to help other nations reach a lasting peace with one another. With respect to the current debate, how typically Canadian for us to set an example for the entire world by

choosing conciliation instead of conflict, diplomacy instead of rebellion, peace instead of war.

I am not aware of any other nation in the world with the same degree of potentially conflicting differences from east to west in terms of culture, language, geography, economics and political outlook as Canada, whose citizens despite these differences are not embroiled in a bloody civil war or otherwise killing one another for the sake of these differences.

Canada by its very nature stands out as a beacon of hope in the world where the concept of peaceful co-existence is overshadowed by seemingly irreconcilable conflict between factions. It is therefore not only timely but also typically Canadian for the Prime Minister to extend an olive branch to the people of the province of Quebec in the wake of the October 30 referendum.

The results of the recent Quebec referendum remind us that we cannot take Canada for granted, that diversity must be respected. Consequently, the government has acted swiftly to initiate a process that in the words of the right hon. Prime Minister "will ensure the unity and evolution of Canada in order to respond to the aspirations of all Canadians".

I think that is worth restating. The government aspires to respond to the aspirations of all Canadians from sea to sea to sea. Some less diplomatic than I have suggested the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the so-called dark prince of separatism, have been so consumed by their own thirst for power that they have lost sight of their primary responsibility to protect the economic, social and political security of the people of Quebec.

Others more cynical than I believe the desire of the Leader of the Opposition to focus 20:20 hindsight on the constitutional failures of his former political bedfellows is an indication of his unwillingness to set aside his uncontrollable, self-serving political ambition and focus on the long term future of the people of Quebec. Personally I feel that the marathon speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition has been somewhat misunderstood.

Clearly we can all understand how easily one can become confused by the constantly changing political agenda of the former Conservative Party federalist turned separatist, now would-be premier of Quebec.

I would like to cut through all of this confusion for a moment and focus on the unity motion. The unity motion is a solemn declaration that sets out how the Government of Canada will conduct its affairs with respect to Quebec in particular and Canada in general. Passage of this motion will indicate to all Canadians and all federal government authorities that it is the will of the House of Commons to recognize the distinct character of Quebec society within the framework of the Canadian federation.

I know what it is like to serve in the opposition. Unfortunately exaggerated and unwarranted attacks on forthright government initiatives are key elements of the often underwhelming opposition art form. If we rise above the separatist bantering of members opposite we see a government, in fact an entire nation of people united by their genuine concern for the long term future of the citizens of Quebec within the federation. How typically Canadian to labour to keep our country together.

Let us not forget the tens of thousands of letters and phone calls and rally goers from Hamilton, Dundas, Ancaster, Flamboro, Burlington and from right across Canada who so passionately showed their support and concern for the people of Quebec before, during and most important, after the October 30 referendum. Let us not forget the evolution of federalism that has allowed Quebec and the other provinces to enjoy increased powers and gradual decentralization with respect to the unique character of each and every province within the framework of a strong and flexible federalist system.

In the case of Quebec we recognize and respect its distinct character, its French speaking majority, its unique culture, its civil law tradition; the fact that Quebec is different, not superior. How typically Canadian that the federal government continues to recognize and respect the rights and concerns of minority groups within Quebec as well.

On behalf of the constituents of Hamilton West I want to say how proud we are of the right hon. Prime Minister's efforts to keep our federation alive. I am proud that the federal government has chosen to address the very real concerns raised by the people of Quebec in a diplomatic and conciliatory fashion.

If this is what it takes to ensure Canada's pre-eminent position in the world as a peace loving federation, if this is what we must do in order to remain the greatest country in the world in which to live, then in my support for this motion I am proud to be typically Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, today is important for me personally, as a Quebec nationalist and as a member of the Bloc Quebecois in this 35th Parliament, as I have an opportunity to participate in this debate on the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, even if all that was tabled before this House was a motion.

Before starting my remarks, I must say that it is rather late, in 1995, almost 1996, to realize that Quebec is different from Ontario, from the west and from the maritimes.

I remember, of course, the great statement of love tens of thousands of Canadians outside Quebec made on October 30. I clearly remember New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna coming and telling us, on the one hand, that he loved us. On the other hand, he toured industries on the periphery of his province, saying: "Come and do business with us; we love our Quebec friends". He was trying to steal our industries away from us. Love, yes, but as long as it is profitable. The Canadian federation has been extremely profitable to Ontario in particular for several centuries now.

By putting forward these proposals for change, including the one dealing with recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, the Prime Minister of Canada acts on the promise he made himself to trick the leader of the Bloc Quebecois before he leaves. The Prime Minister said: "I dream of the day when I will rise in this House to vote for Quebec's recognition as a distinct society and smile as I watch the Leader of the Opposition vote against it".

This is the Prime Minister speaking, a member from Quebec, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, who, unfortunately, does not travel to Quebec often enough and, as a result, is literally out of touch with the francophone public opinion in Quebec. Twenty days before the referendum, like Claude Garcia, he was telling everybody: "We are going to crush the Quebecers and have a 65 per cent victory". Can you see how out of touch from his home province this man is?

That was a petty thing to say, a much too petty strategy, but it is true to form for the Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice.

This motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society is not the result of a sensible reflection with the interest of the country or the betterment of the Canadian and Quebec society in mind, let alone a major change to save the country.

No, the Prime Minister's reflection was not based on these noble intentions, but rather on the desire to get back at the Leader of the Opposition and to discredit him.

Revenge and discredit are inappropriate guides at a time when the survival of two nations is at stake. But neither the people of Canada nor the people of Quebec are fooled by the Prime Minister's scheme or by the Deputy Prime Minister's crocodile tears.

The people understand that this distinct society proposal that was cobbled together even before the committee made its recommendations and that has been revealed as phoney, this motion that recognizes Quebec's distinct society in such a superficial way is outdated and is no longer an issue in Quebec for both sovereignists and federalists who want serious changes.

Again, this shows how the Prime Minister is totally out of touch with Quebec reality. His fanaticism prevents him from understanding the message sent to him on October 30 by the people of Quebec.

In this regard, even partisan federalist newspapers are criticizing the Prime Minister. In the November 29 edition of La Presse , for example, Alain Dubuc writes, and I quote: ``The Chrétien government's first timid effort mostly shows that it has great difficulty in understanding what is happening in Quebec and Canada and, above all, in accepting changes that we see as inevitable''.

They all agree that recognizing Quebec as a distinct society only through a declaration in the House of Commons does not resolve the underlying problem. Even entrenching this later in the Constitution no longer satisfies the aspirations of Quebecers.

The Liberal government has missed the boat and neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the members of the Bloc Quebecois will be embarrassed to vote against this motion. On the contrary, adopting this motion would be a major setback in Quebec's path to its recognition as a people.

As Gérald Larose used to say, we do not want to be bothered with distinct society any more. What we want now is to be a normal, quiet people.

Quebec is sick of these meaningless slogans, of being a society at the mercy of Ottawa's and English Canada's whims, of a Prime Minister who denies ever having said what he said, both before and after he says it.

If the official opposition accepted this motion, Quebec would be seriously weakened since, as everyone acknowledges, Ottawa's distinct society proposal does not go as far as the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord, which both Quebec and the rest of Canada rejected.

The Prime Minister's motion through which the House would recognize Quebec's distinctiveness cannot in any way be considered a response to the demand for change expressed by Quebecers in the October 30 referendum. We must keep in mind that, a little over a month ago, 50 per cent of Quebecers voted in favour of Quebec's sovereignty, while the other 50 per cent voted for a major renewal of Canadian federalism.

The motion before us falls short of Quebecers' aspirations. It is unacceptable, for both sovereignists and federalists.

Once again, the Prime Minister of Canada has made the wrong decision, as all Quebecers and Canadians know. That is why I think that the Prime Minister will not find it so funny on election day.

In closing, one can laugh at a people some of the time, but not all of the time.