Debates of Oct. 9th, 1997

Supply

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

How much did he give after?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

We do not know, he left. The Parti Quebecois MNA, Marie Malavoy, was not even a Canadian citizen. Not only did she vote, but she contributed financially to the Parti Quebecois. How many dinners did they have—we know perfectly well how it works—with Landry, Bouchard, and particularly Chevrette because he is the one who awards grants? “A $1,000 or $2,000 donation will fix that”.

The truth may come as a shock. Again, I may expose myself to some low blows for my efforts, but the truth must be told. If grassroots financing is to be seriously discussed, I am all for it. But let us not trade four quarters for $1. Too many times have I seen board members make contributions on behalf of a company. They had conveniently forgotten how to add. It was not $1,000, but ten $100 donations. They received many such donations.

What makes my blood boil is that they are ready to do anything in the name of separation. They should be ashamed. They are ready to do anything. How many lowdown dirty tricks and so-called policy statements have we seen or heard in the last two weeks? They should have done their homework and they should wait for the RCMP to complete its investigation so they can know the truth. What irritates me most is to see those people pounce on one victim after the other under some convenient excuse, like a pitbull on a bone, because if you believe in their cause, you simply do not count.

I think that the members of the Bloc should engage in some serious soul-searching and add an item to the agenda for their next caucus meeting to discuss how to treat individuals, and our legal system, with respect. Our society is based on the rule of law.

After that, maybe question period will be less interesting but it will be more significant because people's integrity, and that of this institution, will be preserved. I am not surprised to see the shame on their faces. You should have seen their faces. Unfortunately, our viewers did not see them when we produced the letter establishing that Jacques Roy was not under investigation. They lost their only chance to save their leader, Gilles Duceppe.

People's reputations were sullied. I hope that during the question period that will follow my speech we will hear excuses, and that efforts will be made to restore people's integrity. They have shown their true colours. Many dishonest things were said, but I remain confident. Those people across the way were elected democratically and they have some intellectual integrity. I remain confident—I hope—that they will put their meanness aside to preserve people's integrity.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised to hear the remarks made by the member for Bourassa, who portrays himself as the champion of democracy in Quebec and in Canada. If my memory serves me correctly—he will correct me in his response—he was the one who told one of our colleagues, the incumbent candidate in Bourassa, to go back home if he did not agree with his political option. I do not consider that to be a very democratic gesture.

I do not recall hearing him apologize, but I am sure that, if we give him the opportunity to apologize in this House today on his own behalf and on behalf of Canadians, because people are entitled to their opinions, he will certainly take this opportunity and apologize for these nasty remarks. The member sitting next to him will certainly join me in urging him to do so.

He named two individuals, Mr. Martineau and another man, who gave $900 and $1,000 respectively. As a matter of fact, the provincial legislation on the financing of political parties says that only individuals can contribute to election funds, which is perfectly legal and honest. I do not think that a person should be denied the right to contribute to a political party's coffers because he or she holds a position in a company, organization or institution. The law gives everybody this right.

We are talking about two people. I would like to ask the very determined member for Bourassa, who tried four times to join us because he liked it so much, what he thinks of David Berger being appointed ambassador to Israel so that he could make room for a new candidate? What does he think of Lucie Blais, the Liberal candidate who was defeated in Abitibi in 1993, who was appointed to the board of directors of the National Council of Welfare? What does he think of Margo Brousseau, the Liberal candidate who was defeated in Louis-Hébert, who was appointed to the board of directors of the Quebec Port Corporation, with a per diem of around $300? What does he think of Gaétan Dumas, the former member for Richmond-Wolfe, and of Pierre Gravel, Delton Sams and Maurice Tremblay, who must have got their smiles back after landing some very generous contracts with Justice Canada?

What does he think of the hon. member for Laval West and of Joan Kouri, who were defeated in Laval East and Brome—Missisquoi respectively in 1993 and are now earning $86,400 as immigration commissioners? What does he think of Angéline Fournier, a Liberal candidate and a good friend of Guy Bertrand, who was awarded a major contract by the Council for Canadian Unity? What does he think of Aurélien Gill, the Liberal candidate who was defeated in Roberval, who was appointed to the National Economic Development Board, with a per diem of $500?

What does he think of Senator Hervieux-Payette being appointed to the Senate so that she could let another candidate have her seat? What does he think of Rita Lavoie, the Liberal candidate defeated in Manicouagan, being appointed to the board of directors of the Business Development Bank of Canada? What does he think of Eric Lemieux, the Liberal candidate defeated in Bellechasse, being appointed to the board of directors of the National Museum of Science and Technology with a salary of $300 a day?

What does he think of André Ouellet's appointment to Canada Post with a $160,000 salary? What does he think of the awarding in 1993 to the hon. member for La Prairie, who was then an election candidate in La Prairie, of a CIDA contract worth $99,500, since a $100,000 contract would have required a call for tenders? What does he think of the awarding to Michelle Tisseyre, the Liberal candidate defeated in Laurentides in 1993, of a seven-month $60,000 contract from the Privy Council? Not too shabby, is it?

What does he think of the appointment of Kimon Valaskakis, the defeated Liberal candidate, as ambassador to OCDE with a $115,000 salary? What does he think of the appointments to ministers' offices of defeated candidates like Claire Brouillet, Guy Chartrand, Benoît Chiquette, Jean Pelletier, Camille Samson and himself. Is this partisanship?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is called competence.

Madam Speaker, I would rather see Kimon Valaskakis appointed ambassador to the OECD than see Richard Therrien, a former member of the FLQ, sit with his PQ friends as a judge.

I opened the door to them. I gave them the time to apologize. But they won't apologize, after all. I was wrong.

We should not question the competence of people. Most of these people are great Canadians. These are people who have done and will continue to do a lot for the Canadian people, for the Canadian government. Certainly, we will never be able to appoint a member of the Bloc Quebecois Canadian ambassador again.

Now that the bubble has gone bust, now that they have shown their true colours, I hope that they will take the opportunity to apologize. They resorted to low blows. Some people told me: “You should speak up, Denis. A Bloc member has used wiretapping in the past”. I will not get into that. I find this appalling. I will not speak about that. I will forget about the methods of the MP for Témiscamingue. He is older now and I hope he has learned his lesson.

I am very proud of the legislation on the financing of federal political parties. We could make some amendments. They can play at holier than thou and act outraged, but one thing is certain, I'd rather have an imperfect system in place than a perfect system in limbo.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting afternoon.

I was wondering why the hon. member from the government side would give such a compliment to the Reform Party. He said we were on a different planet. I am sure he means a higher planet because I am sure they would not want to degrade a member of Parliament. We really accept that type of adjustment. It is encouraging.

I was just wondering what influence peddling means. We had a flood in Manitoba as members know, and as soon as the election was announced we saw 12 Liberals paddling down the river with $5,000 cheques and vote, vote, vote Liberal. Well six of them have floated right down the river.

The funny part was that all of a sudden, because there was an election and the Conservatives, Reform and NDP were running, they decided that this honest, accountable Liberal government had made some mistakes in accounting from the floods of 1993 and 1995 so they just handed us a little cheque for $1.25 million. Boy, we loved that. Finally the Liberals admitted they had made a little mistake.

Now I do not know what is happening. I received a letter from a constituent here in Ontario suggesting that she feels sorry for the Liberal members who made these huge pledges or influence peddling during the flood, but these poor people are still waiting for that promise that was made. They are living in house trailers because their homes still have not been redone. She recommends that these hon. members from the government side should move into trailers for the winter in order to see how it feels, to see if that is influence peddling or not.

So thanks for raising us to a higher planet. We really appreciate that.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think there are some problems with the sound system, because every time the member spoke, I thought I was hearing the music from Star Wars. It was like Darth Vader.

He was breathing deeply. You are from a galaxy far, far away from Canadians.

The only thing I have to say is this: I am extremely proud to see the speed with which our government reacted to the Manitoba flood, and when I see the members of the Reform Party playing politics with the issue, I come to the conclusion they are no better than the members of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, with your permission, I will share my time with the member for Lévis.

I am pleased to rise today in the context of the first opposition day of the Bloc Quebecois in the 36th legislature.

As this is my first speech here since the House reconvened, I would like to thank the voters of the riding of Laval Centre for re-electing me to represent them in the federal Parliament. The Bloc Quebecois has the majority of Quebec members in this House. Together with the other 43 members of the Bloc Quebecois, I will defend the interests of Quebeckers, and especially those of my constituents in Laval Centre, with pride and determination.

I rise today on the motion tabled earlier by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and amended by my colleague for Laurentides, which reads:

That this House condemns the attitude of the Government, which refuses to introduce in-depth reform of the legislation on the financing of federal political parties even though the existing legislation allows for a wide range of abuses.

With allegations of influence peddling within the Liberal Party and the government appearing in the headlines for over a week now, everyone in Quebec will recognize the importance of this motion.

If I may, to begin with, I will briefly review the facts. Last October 1, following up on a question asked in the House, the Solicitor General of Canada, the minister responsible for the RCMP, stated that he was not aware of an RCMP investigation concerning the fundraising practices in Quebec of the Liberal party of Canada. The Minister of Human Resources Development had to admit publicly, a few minutes later, that he himself had informed the RCMP of the allegations of influence peddling, and that this had been prior to the election call.

In the days that followed, we learned that the Prime Minister, his executive assistant, the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Public Works were all aware as well of allegations involving a Liberal Party of Canada staffer and an assistant to the President of Treasury Board. In the next few days, will there be anyone left in the Liberal Party and in the government who will not be implicated in this dark story of Liberal Party of Canada fundraising?

We get the impression that we are watching a rerun of what happened to the Conservative Party in connection with influence peddling. Everyone will remember all the influence peddling scandals that surrounded the Conservatives when they were in power. At that time, the Liberals took delight in denouncing them. Now the Liberals find themselves in a similar situation, one that is equally uncomfortable and the morality of which is dubious and then some. Proof of that, the Prime Minister is not embarrassed to admit that his famous, still secret and rather nebulous code of ethics does not apply in this case of alleged influence peddling. This is corroborated by the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, who is himself responsible for organizing the Liberal Party in Quebec. The latter has even stated that the only code respected by the Liberal Party was the Criminal Code. That is at least some reassurance.

If the government cleaned up the rules regarding the financing of federal political parties, such a situation could not occur. In this House, only the Bloc Quebecois adheres to clear rules for financing, for it has chosen to respect the wishes of Quebeckers on the democratic financing of political parties.

This is the spirit in which the Bloc Quebecois abides by the Quebec Act to govern the financing of political parties. You will recall that the Quebec National Assembly passed this act during the first mandate of the Lévesque government.

According to many observers of the political scene in Quebec, it contributed to cleaning up the financing of political parties and as a result reduced considerably the influence of big corporations on political parties and governments.

Since its arrival in the federal arena, on several occasions the Bloc Quebecois has defended the principle of democratic financing of political parties. Already in 1994, my colleague for Richelieu moved a motion to the effect that only voters be allowed to contribute to political parties. We raised the issue again during the debate on Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the federal Referendum Act. It was a good opportunity, you might say a golden opportunity, to review the way federal political parties are financed.

However, every single amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois in this regard was defeated by the Liberals as well as the Reformers.

I would like to give you some data to illustrate the fundamental difference an act such as the one in Quebec can make. Any given year between 1983 and 1990, 40% of the 500 biggest corporations in Canada and 35% of the 155 biggest financial institutions in Canada made a financial contribution to a federal political party.

Between 1974 and 1990, less than 2% of voters saw fit to contribute to a federal political organization in any one of those years. No need for an extensive analysis to see that, unlike individuals, businesses are very interested in funding federal political parties who flirt with power.

We can easily imagine that the influence of big corporations on the government far exceeds that of citizens. Nobody in this House will be surprised to learn that in 1995, not so long ago, the Liberal Party of Canada collected $7.51 million from businesses: for example, Nesbitt-Burns gave $88,424, Bombardier contributed $62,884 and the Toronto Dominion Bank, who was more restrained, gave a mere $40,234.

Bloc Quebecois members respect the rules prevailing in Quebec. Our party is funded by voters. In 1996 for example, the Bloc Quebecois received $1,159,685 from 17,030 voters; that means an average contribution of $68.08 for my colleagues from the other side who like accuracy so much. In my riding, Laval Centre, 345 individuals gave $19,141.25, for an average contribution of $55.50.

Today, it is with great pride that I thank these men and women who believe in the Bloc Quebecois and who democratically contribute to our party because they believe in democracy. These men and women financially support a party which expresses their hopes and not one which promises proximity to power in exchange for a contribution.

It is easy to see that the Quebec legislation makes place for the citizens by keeping corporations away from political party financing. This contributes highly to a more democratic political life and ensures healthier political practices than those we have seen at the federal level, particularly over the last few weeks.

I am sure you will agree with me: political virginity is very fragile. However, it seems this government is not even interested in restoring its own image. It is too difficult a task evidently. Secrecy has become an institution, with the approval of those who should be protecting democracy.

I regret to say that Canada, this marvellous country, is in very bad shape.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speeches about the various systems, whether in the federal government or the Quebec government. When I was in the National Assembly, there was always a lot of criticism. Whatever system we have it will draw criticism.

Look at the situation in the United States and in most other countries. Stop any ten persons in the street and ask them, whether in Ontario or Quebec—not in the United States, but in Canada—if they think that our system to raise funds for political parties is honest, equitable and free from interference. Nine out of ten will ask you: Do you think I am naive? No one believes that the system works honestly. This is sad, but it is possible in a democracy.

Two or three years ago, I tabled a private member's bill based on a study of the financing of political parties in Canada, done by a New Brunswick University student working for his Ph.D. I got in touch with him and, together, we prepared something. The problem with my bill was probably its simplicity. I proposed to prohibit anyone—companies, unions, individuals—from contributing to political parties. It is up to us, the people, to give the various political parties the means to finance their activities. I have done some research with the Department of National Revenue and, considering what it is costing the government right now, it would be cheaper to pay the political parties directly according to a set formula.

I hope to introduce a similar bill again and I would like to ask the hon. member this question. Do you think that you and your colleagues could support a bill that said it is up to the government, that is the people, to finance political parties. No money from companies, no fundraisers.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly what my hon. colleague from Gatineau said, I have every reason to believe that he will very strongly support the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois today.

I think the government should take the time to take a good long look at party financing. Nothing is perfect. It is quite obvious that the very poor opinion voters in general have of party financing comes in part from the ease with which, at the federal level, companies can finance the government party and the various parties that may take office some day.

I count on the hon. member for Gatineau, of course, to convince his colleagues to vote in favour of the opposition's motion. In doing so, he would clearly demonstrate his sincerity and the importance he gives to intelligent, logical and reasonable party financing.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating my hon. colleague from Laval Centre on delivering an excellent speech. Its dispassionateness and logic was in sharp contrast with the very passionate, demagogic and, I would add, acid and acrimonious remarks made earlier by the hon. member for Bourassa.

The member for Bourassa went to great lengths in his remarks to sidetrack the debate, first by trying to sully the Bloc Quebecois when he should be looking at the mistakes made by his own party or allegations concerning them, and second by saying that the “balloon” had busted, when the party he represents is still facing allegations.

I would like to ask my colleague, the hon. member for Laval Centre, if she does not also make a direct connection between allowing political parties to be financed by companies and the risk of influence peddling.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer very quickly. It is very clear that if a large company—I mentioned Nesbitt Burns—telephoned my office and they had really made a very large contribution to the financing of my party, I can tell you that I would take the call very quickly if I were the Prime Minister.

And I am certain that, since the Prime Minister is a very efficient man, as is well known, he would pick it up very quickly, as though it were a red phone.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I usually begin my speeches by saying that I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to whatever the topic is.

I must say that today I listened carefully all day long to the various speeches from the members opposite, particularly those from the member for Abitibi and the member for Bourassa. I am not sure that I am really pleased to be speaking after them.

Now look what they are waving instead of the Canadian flag—

[An hon. member]

It is a disgrace.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

—to break our concentration. Could you please get serious?

[The Speaker]

I am sure hon. members are well aware of the Standing Orders. Props are not permitted in the House. Perhaps the member could leave that under the desk.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important issue and I congratulate the hon. member for Gatineau, even though he sits across the floor. I clearly remember speaking to his motion and, in my opinion, his point of view makes sense.

He said he had talked to a lot of people in his riding and elsewhere in Quebec. He said that 90% of these people had lost confidence in the financing of political parties in its present form.

We Bloc Quebecois members want to convince this House to do like Quebec and to pass an act limiting the financing of political parties to individuals, as opposed to businesses, given the risk of influence peddling or undue influence. It is a difficult thing to do, as the hon. member for Laval Centre explained.

At times, when large sums of money are involved, and I will discuss these later on, it is difficult to say no to someone who wants to make a contribution to a political party.

The hon. member goes further and says that perhaps the financing of political parties should be provided exclusively by the government. He did not have time to elaborate, but I understand his point of view. What is the purpose of his proposal? It is to achieve a balance between political parties.

The financing of the New Democratic Party is no better, in the sense that it is provided by unions.

I am not suggesting it is illegal. Under the present legislation, it is perfectly legal, but the NDP has very often taken positions that are influenced by union demands. In a way, their position is not any better, because it is biased the other way.

If we want to achieve a better balance, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, suggest political parties should be financed by small contributions from individuals. Hundreds or thousands of individuals would be financing the various political parties.

In the last report, the one for 1996, we are told that the Bloc Quebecois received contributions from more than 17,000 individuals in all ridings. So, we should not show any undue preference for one group or the other. Contributions of $100 or even as low as $5, $10, or $15 in many cases are not going to influence a member or a party in any way. It is the big contributions that have an impact.

Under the Quebec legislation on political party financing, contributions over $3,000 are not allowed. If the same thing applied at the federal level, we would see some improvement. That was the second goal of the legislation on political party financing, Bill 2. The first legislation that was passed by the Parti Quebecois in 1977 was Bill 2. The first bill was on linguistic matters. But Bill 2 was passed first because it needed less extensive consultations. It was passed in May 1977 by the Parti Quebecois. René Lévesque, whose memoirs I have been reading for a second time recently, was really insisting on that piece of legislation. It was really standing out.

Why did René Lévesque want to make this a priority? Those who know something about his political career will recall that he is the one who nationalized power companies in Quebec, and he has been put under intense pressure at that time. He did not want other democratically elected parties to be put under undue pressure by companies trying to protect their interests. He did not want governments that would be bound and gagged by legal entities like corporations, groups, businesses or unions. Individual citizens were to make the decisions in a very democratic system.

I pay tribute to the hon. member for Gatineau because his suggestion deserves some consideration. I invite him to reintroduce his bill so we can look at it, because it would a step in the right direction. The goal is to achieve a balance, to avoid abuse and, more importantly, to restore public confidence in federal and provincial political parties.

In Quebec, the process has already been completed. All parties agree with it. The idea of going back to the old system never occurred to the Quebec Liberal Party which, led by Mr. Bourassa, came back to power for nine years. The Quebec Liberals know—and so should the member for Bourassa, who worked with them, and, for that matter, all Quebec MPs—how proud Quebeckers are of that change. Perhaps there is room for improvement. Anything can be improved. Perfection may be an unreachable goal, but this is a major step towards a better democracy.

Before concluding, I want to talk about two particularly painful experiences as a Quebecker. I am referring to the two referendums held in 1980 and 1995. In both cases, some major companies influenced public opinion in Quebec and had a bearing on the political future of Quebeckers. If you look at the report on the last federal election, you see amounts such as $61,000 from Microsoft Canada, $53,000 from Nesbitt Burns Inc., $50,000 from Charman Securities Co., $70,469 from Scotia McLeod Inc., and $66,000 from the Toronto Dominion Bank.

Oddly enough, in all reports, even going back ten years, it is often the banks who are the biggest contributors to the federal political parties. Curiously, they are doing well these days, making record profits.

It is hard to make any changes to the monetary system, because there is the Bank Act. The Liberal Party says it is hard. But when it comes to cutting the deficit, for example, to changing the Unemployment Insurance Act, to bringing the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund up to close to $14 billion, then there is no hesitation.

But if the Liberals were limited to collecting contributions only from Canada's unemployed, I can tell you that they would not have raised much in the last election. They would not have got much from the unemployed in the Maritimes. But they did get a nasty message, they were nearly wiped out in the Maritimes. The New Democratic Party got a pretty good showing, the Conservatives as well.

Those were messages the Liberal Party did not get. I think the hon. member for Gatineau go the message, when he admitted that 90% of the population no longer has confidence in the present system of corporate funding for political parties, and he is right.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, further to the remarks by the member for Lévis, I tried the system in 1988.

Looking at my notes for the 1988 election, I see I had 109 individuals contribute $23,870 to my riding fund.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

And how much from business?

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Nothing, zilch. I tried this system of public funding. It is true. It is in my notes and in the books in the library.

I also wanted to answer the member for Témiscamingue. Earlier he said that nine individuals had contributed to his campaign fund in 1993. In the 1984 elections, I received $8,015 from individuals. In 1988, $23,870; in 1993, $1,950. In these three elections, I received $33,835 from 198 individuals.

In 1984, from business, I received $17,940; in 1988, nothing; and in 1993, $9,400. I received $27,340 from 126 businesses. That means I was a better candidate. I got 198 donations from individuals and 126 from businesses. That is a matter of record. It is in the library.

I want to return to the comments by the member for Lévis and what the Liberal member for Gatineau said on funding. It is true, but we should go a little lower than $5,000. If there were a free vote in the House, I would be the first to vote in favour, because I think it is a fine method. You look to the people and find the way to improve.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted. I do not know if it was just my speech or the combined effect of all the speeches made by members of the Bloc Quebecois, as well as the one by the hon. member for Gatineau, but I have been listening to the hon. member for Abitibi and I find he has come a very long way. At this rate, we stand a chance of having him vote with us on this motion.

This would not be his first about-face, mind you.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

He has switched parties once already, at least. If we listen closely to what he is saying, without interrupting, we notice that the more he speaks, the more he makes our case.

He said “I changed my mind to some extent. I tried the other system, where individuals finance political parties”. It sounded as if it had not worked. So much so that he switched parties. But we must look at the reason for that. That is when this system becomes important. When he was defeated, he was running as a Conservative candidate. You will recall that, when the Conservatives were in office last, they really did a job on the unemployed, if I can put it that way. I understand the people from the Abitibi. He voted against the bill, but people were still upset at him because he was a Conservative.

He was a member of the opposition for a while. Then he did some thinking and came back on the government's side. Things were a little better this year, but he still not convinced. When you think of it, he agrees with us. He is becoming more and more reasonable. It is encouraging. It means we are not wasting our time talking in this House. We are succeeding.

This leaves the member for Bourassa, who has finally put his little toy and flag away. Things are also improving on that front. We must take action, with the help of the Chair, but things slowly change. It encourages us to keep going.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member for Lévis. I am a new member in this House, but I agree with him that it is sometimes annoying to see people trying to distract those who are speaking. Whatever happened to the freedom of speech?

The hon. member for Lévis gave a great speech and I also appreciated the comments made by the member for Gatineau, who made a very intelligent presentation. I hope we will continue in the right direction.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my new colleague, the member for Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, for his comments.

What he says is important. Parliament is a place where we may exercise our right to speak, but in order to do so properly, we must respect the right of others to speak. Sometimes, people are aggressive in their remarks, but they are always respectful and use parliamentary language, and when there are small lapses, the Speaker may intervene.

I like this, but when people get carried away, and trade insults back and forth, particularly the member for Abitibi and the new member for Bourassa today, he should take another look at what he said in Hansard tomorrow, at his heckling during other members' speeches.

It is rare that I make this sort of remark. I hope, along with the member for Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, that, in future, things will continue to improve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully all day to this debate on the funding of the electoral system in Canada. I really regret that the members opposite, in the heat of the moment no doubt, seem to have forgotten that we are debating one of the foundations of one of the most successful democracies in the world, Canada.

As this is a Bloc motion, I know that the Bloc has no interest in the future of this great country, but I do believe that the members of the other parties opposite, like ourselves, do believe in the future of Canada and do believe that Canada is successful because of the strength of its democratic institutions.

At this point in the debate I would like to ask all members to take a step back and think calmly about the strength and integrity of the electoral process here in Canada. Let us consider some of the many facets of our electoral system that give it the reputation it so richly deserves.

As in so many other fields, Canada is internationally acknowledged as a leader in electoral management. This acknowledgement is also evident here at home at the provincial and municipal levels. Our electoral system serves Canadians well as they exercise their democratic right to vote.

I will touch on some specific illustrations to support this point. First, I point to the independent and non-partisan nature of the office of the chief electoral officer. We consciously set this officer apart to ensure the electoral process is fair and non-partisan.

This is the case, as members know. For example, in the last two general elections there have been no election scandals reported to the commissioner of Elections Canada. Canadians elections are not tainted by the machinations we so often see in other countries, machinations which rob the citizens of those countries of their vote.

Furthermore, should there be any complaints they would be considered and prosecuted if necessary by an independent commissioner. Every system set up by human beings has its limitations and every good human system, if it is well designed, has to have a mechanism for dealing with problems as they arise, and that is the case here. We have an independent commissioner.

Equally fundamental to the strength of our democracy are the principles and key elements which imbue the Canada Elections Act and speak to excellent elections management in this country. The principles of the act are fairness to candidates and electors, participation to encourage candidates to come forward and electors to vote, and transparency in financial contributions and elections costs.

I submit no election system in the world is more transparent than that of this country. The four key elements of the electoral regime further support the lofty but for Canadians attainable objective of fair and effectively managed elections.

The first element is spending limits to ensure an equal playing field among candidates. The second is public funding, that is to say partial reimbursement of expenses and tax deductions to enhance participation. This has been discussed today. This public funding is a balance of private support and public support.

The third element is public disclosure of expenses to enhance transparency. The fourth is access to broadcasting to ensure that all parties' messages are heard.

I stress among those the spending limits. In my mind these are very special elements of our system. Even if you have the money, even if you are very wealthy in this country because of the spending limits you cannot buy your way to elected office.

These principles and key elements are reflected throughout the Canada Elections Act and give us a system we can all be proud of, one that works well for Canadian democracy.

We can look at the interest of many other countries in our election process as a reflection of our own ability to manage elections. Elections Canada has worked with over 80 countries providing expertise and advice in electoral management. In some instances Canadian election officials travel to these other countries to provide on the spot expertise. Russia is one good example of that.

In other cases our ability to manage elections has led to our providing operational support for actual elections. We remember Bosnia and South Africa as good examples of that. As well, Elections Canada is engaged with the Mexican and Czechoslovakian governments in electoral management questions at the present time.

I think hon. members will agree that this is a most worthwhile facet of our foreign policy, helping other countries to better manage their elections at the same time as exchanging election management information and gaining ideas from those other countries.

Another dimension of this international reputation that we have is the frequency with which Canada is asked to provide observers to elections in other countries. Often we see countries coming out of long periods of strife anxious to develop a sound electoral process.

Canada is frequently there as part of an international observer team to provide a measure of reassurance to voters and to advise the national government. As we speak, a team of members from this House is doing exactly that, supervising elections in Romania.

Our ability to manage elections is also acknowledged closer to home by a number of provincial governments. They reached agreements with Elections Canada that provide for elections management co-operation that will save taxpayers money and provide for more effective elections.

These agreements exist, for example, with the governments of British Columbia, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and, dare I mention, with the province of Quebec where we help conduct elections and where we have been asked to conduct elections.

These agreements with the provinces flow from important changes that Elections Canada discussed with this House last fall and which were voted into law in the last general election.

Chief among these further modernizations in election management was the national register of voters. Drawing on voter information gathered during the last ever federal door to door enumeration and information gathered by other federal and provincial sources, Elections Canada can now provide a list of electors at very short notice for general or byelections.

This means no more costly door to door enumerations, faster access to lists for all parties once an election is called and a shorter, less costly elections period.

This election, too, which was carefully reviewed in this House by the last Parliament is of great interest to the provinces that I mentioned. By agreeing to share voter information with Elections Canada, they will have access to the register for their own electoral purposes. This saves them the cost of door to door enumerations.

The co-operation does not stop at the provincial level. Under the Canada Elections Act, voter information exchanges can take place with municipal governments, as they do, and even with school boards on condition that they use the register data for electoral purposes only.

We have a clear indication of approval of federal elections management from provincial governments. This is an unheralded example of the kind of intergovernmental co-operation Canadians expect in this era of tight budgets and technological opportunities.

Members need only consider their own experiences last summer in earning the trust of their constituents to know how well elections are managed in Canada. Despite the many changes and improvements introduced at very short notice, the election was a success. Thousands of people were recruited and trained to provide parties, candidates and electors with advice and assistance which contributed to the success of the election.

Among those thousands were the couple of thousand volunteers who helped me in Peterborough riding. I want to thank them for their contributions of all sorts to my campaign and their contributions to the elections process in Canada.

I remind members that they do have and will play an important part in ensuring that Canada's elections are well managed. Through debate and committee work we will be able to contribute to the electoral system, as have our predecessors as recently as last year.

The principles of the Canada Elections Act are to be emulated. The central elements of the act provide the foundation for a quality electoral regime. Our electoral process serves the needs of Canadians, parties and legislators.

We have the best electoral system in the world but, as I said, no human system is perfect. That is why all good systems have fail safe mechanisms and review mechanisms built into them. That is so with our fine electoral system.

For example, we have built in the referral of problems to an independent commissioner and, if necessary, to the police and the courts. Also we have public review of elections matters following elections, between elections here in this House and in its committees.

I urge opposition members engaged in this debate not to be so carried away with the heat of the moment that they seriously damage the finest electoral system in the world.