Debates of Feb. 11th, 2003

Supply

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.

The House resumed from February 10 consideration of the motion.

[The Speaker]

We will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the hon. member for Saint-Jean relating to the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 34 minutes.

Canada Elections Act

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, for the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved that Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to move second reading of a bill that will change the way politics is done in this country, a bill that will address the perception that money talks, that big companies and big unions have too much influence on politics, a bill that will reduce cynicism about politics and politicians, a bill that is tough but fair.

Canadians demand transparency, openness and accountability. They demand it in health care and we delivered last week.

Canadians demand it from their politicians in terms of their fundraising and we are delivering with this bill.

The bill provides for full disclosure of all contributions and expenses over $200 at all levels, not only for national parties and candidates in elections but for riding associations, for nominations, and for leadership candidates.

We are acting on recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, an officer of the Parliament of Canada. These recommendations were the accumulation of a career spent as custodian of the democratic process in Canada, a career that has earned him the respect and gratitude not just of Canadians or of this House but of new and struggling democracies around the world that have sought his advice as they have worked to bring truly democratic and fair elections to their nations. I want to pay tribute to Mr. Kingsley and I would like to thank him for his excellent work.

With these new rules, there will be no more black holes for campaign contributions and no more allowing unreceipted money and unaccounted expenses.

We only have to look south of the border to see how money impacts on politics, the many millions that are raised for individual Senate seats and the huge contributions to political action committees. In the United States, the fitness of a candidate for office is judged first on his or her ability to raise huge sums of money, rather than on his or her brains or ability to lead. They call it the money primary. It takes place in the shadows long before an idea is expressed, before a speech is given, before a vote is cast. We do not want to see this in Canada.

The bill will ensure that we have a very different system, a typical Canadian new institution, a system that will be a model for other democracies.

Many years ago, we in Canada placed limits on campaign spending. This bill places limits on fundraising. Limits on contributions to political parties. Limits for candidates. Limits for nominations. Limits for leaderships. And it imposes full disclosure.

I was not always in agreement with René Lévesque on everything. But there is no doubt that the party financing legislation he passed in Quebec has served as a model for democracy. It has worked well. This bill builds on that model and corrects some of its flaws.

Contributions from individuals will be limited to a maximum of $10,000 to a political party per year. This amount is approximately equivalent in current dollars to the $3,000 of the Quebec legislation of 1977.

This bill is in the same vein as legislation passed a few years ago in Manitoba to prohibit corporate and union contributions to political parties' election funds.

With a very limited exception, which I will explain in a moment, businesses and trade unions will be prohibited from contributing to political parties or candidates or leaderships or nominations.

We all know there is a perception that corporate and union contributions buy influence. I do not believe that this is true. And I do not believe that any member of this House feels that he or she has been improperly influenced.

But, and this is very important, there is something that we should all recognize. All of us in this House have been guilty at one time or another of throwing out the accusation that corporate or union contributions influence our opponents. Often we have done so without really thinking, and the media are no better.

None of this is good for the political process or democracy. This bill addresses this issue head on. I firmly believe that the elimination of contributions to political parties by business and trade unions will greatly improve the political culture in Canada.

Members of Parliament argued that they should not be precluded from taking very small contributions from local businesses in their ridings. In fact, in the last election, the average such contribution was $450. Clearly such contributions cannot be seen to be influencing decisions.

Therefore the bill allows businesses and trade unions to contribute a maximum of $1,000 a year to a candidate or a riding association, but not to a national party. This is, I believe, an acceptable compromise, but anything more would gravely diminish the purpose of this bill.

A thousand dollars a year over a four-year period adds up to $4,000. No business should be able to contribute more than that to a political party through a riding association. Otherwise we would be recreating at the riding level what we are attempting to eliminate at the national.

Indeed, one of the great sources of frustration to those who are working for a true reform of political party financing is the existence of loopholes that allow people to get around the law. The necessity to plug those loopholes right from the start with this bill, and thus to avoid the public cynicism to which they give rise, is the justification for the severity of this bill we have before us.

Political parties are essential to the democratic process. We all know that in this House. We all know that they need money to operate. That too is essential in a democracy.

The principle of public funding has been long established in Canada through tax credits for individual contributions to political parties and through rebates to parties and candidates for a proportion of election expenses.

To make up for the loss of corporate and union contributions, this bill substantially increases public financing of the political process. The maximum tax credit for individual contributions is raised from $200 to $400. National party rebates for election expenses will be raised from 22.5% to 50%.

Candidates themselves receive a rebate of 50% if they have more than 15% of the vote. The bill reduces the threshold to 10%. Each political party will receive $1.50 per vote received in the last general election.

The increase in the individual tax credit, the increase in the rebate and the direct subsidy to the party will make up for the loss of corporate and trade union contributions and it will do so through public financing, the only way to remove the perception that big money influences decisions of government. We can do this at a cost of about 65¢ per Canadian in non-election years and a bit more than $1 per Canadian in an election year. This is a very small price to pay for helping to improve our democracy. It is a very good investment of public funds.

Some have suggested that the subsidy to a political party means that an individual's tax dollars may go to a party that he or she disagrees with. The reality is that the $1.50 a year goes to the party that person voted for in the previous election.

If someone changes his or her mind after an election, if someone realizes he or she made a mistake, for example by voting for the Canadian Alliance, the $1.50 per year still adds up to a total of $6 over the four years. That person can make up for his or her mistake. Everybody makes mistakes. It could happen to somebody who voted Liberal too, but not many because we are still doing quite well.

That person can make up for his or her mistake by making a personal contribution of up to $10,000 a year to the political party of his or her new choice. That person will benefit from the increase in the limit for the maximum tax credit. The argument about the use of tax dollars for a political party the taxpayer does not agree with just does not hold water.

As a result of this bill, elections will be financed almost 90% by the public. This will make Canada a model for democracy. It is something we should all be proud of.

I know some members have concerns about the impact of this bill on the internal workings of political parties. It is important to understand that these are matters that are not for legislation; they are matters for parties to work out. We do not need legislation to regulate the internal workings of political parties.

This is a long bill with a lot of clauses in it. It is possible that there are provisions that have been drafted in a way where there are unintended consequences. I would hope that the committee will propose appropriate amendments. However, the basic principles of the bill are fundamental to the government. By that I mean disclosure and accountability, the banning of corporate and union contributions with the maximum $1,000 exception, the limits on individual contributions and the public financing regime.

Corporations and unions have contributed to political parties out of a spirit of good corporate citizenship. I thank them and all political parties thank them. I would hope that in the future they will take the money that they would have otherwise contributed to political parties, and first they could send it as a gift to the government to pay for the programs. That would be a contribution if they believe in it but if they have reservations and they do not want to do that, they could contribute that money to charities and universities.

Democracy is a living thing. The history of the world teaches us it is a fragile thing as well, to be nurtured, to be encouraged, to be promoted and to be defended.

Philosophers say there is no such thing as a perfect democracy. Of course that is true. Any society is a work in progress. The truest test of a living, growing democracy like Canada is the extent to which our institutions strive to live up to our ideals, for it is in continuing to measure ourselves against our ideals that we reaffirm their power to inspire. I believe that this bill passes that test.

This bill is about making Canada more open. It is about removing barriers for women, for men of religious and ethnic minorities, for the poor and the disadvantaged. Ultimately it is about ensuring that their voices are heard as loudly and clearly as anyone else.

Forty years ago this month I became a candidate for this Parliament. I was elected on April 8, 1963. I have had the honour of having been elected to this body 12 times. I know I speak for every man and woman in this House when I say that on each of those occasions, I have been filled with reverence for the democratic system.

Bill C-24, far from repudiating the system that allowed me and so many others to serve this great country, pays tribute to it by seeking to give it new energy, new vigour and new relevance by passing on to the new generation a democratic tradition not tired or worn, but renewed and alive; not perfect, but better; one that lives up to its name, one of the most beautiful, most fragile, most cherished words in any language: democracy.

As my career draws to a close, this is a very significant occasion for me. I have seen this Parliament evolve, and I see what is going on out there. Public scepticism is increasing. Our system is a very open one. Question period can be seen in every home every day, as is the case for all the exchanges that take place here in the House, and people can also read reports in the press. A lot of people have lost faith in our democratic institutions.

When we see how people in other jurisdictions have to collect millions and millions of dollars—for instance to become a United States senator—and when the public hears talk of hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions, people lose faith. Here we want our institutions to be made in Canada.

One of the things that is very important for us as Canadians is to have a personality that is very different. There is a country south of us which has a very different institution. We have this Parliament that meets every day, where ministers, the Prime Minister and members come together to ask questions. They do not have this there. We have different institutions that have served Canada well, that have given us a great personality.

This legislation will pass and we will be looked upon as a modern society that takes democracy seriously, a country that is very preoccupied with making sure that diversity and unity are very important. We want to give a chance to everybody to come to Parliament and serve the people. Money will not make the difference. It will be the quality of the system.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the Prime Minister why he waited until he was leaving to introduce the legislation.

[The Speaker]

The right hon. member knows there are no questions on the first three speeches at second reading stage on a bill, so I am afraid he is stuck.

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I started out today with mere skepticism about what the Prime Minister was up to but after listening to his speech, I guess my skepticism can only rise. For a man who claims there is no problem at all with corruption and undue influence in his government, he is sure making an awfully big deal about fixing it. I hope members caught some of the ironies in that.

There was criticism of the American system of electing senators. I remind the Prime Minister that he is opposed to electing senators at all in this country.

He was praising democratic political parties and keeping them open, while the aspirant to his own leadership restricts membership sales in his own political party.

This is a party that talks about cleaning up the nomination process, making it more open for nominations and for elections, when the Prime Minister regularly appoints candidates in winnable ridings for his party.

The biggest hypocrisy today is to talk about democracy and the importance of this institution, when only a half an hour ago the Prime Minister and his successor stood in the House to vote against the requirement that they come here and get a mandate for war, that they face this House before sending our soldiers to face war.

The Canadian Alliance, unlike the Liberal Party, has long been a proponent of real democratic reform. We have proposed over the years substantial reforms to how we do business in the House.

Our previous House leader, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, and the member for Fraser Valley before him, tabled documents “Building Trust” and “Building Trust II” that have made important proposals for how we can actually bring democracy to the House of Commons.

Of course our party has been at the forefront for a very long time in urging reform of the Senate, and not just elections, but comprehensive reform to make it a democratic and effective institution. We have stood to bring about in this country an effective system of direct democracy to enhance the voice of average Canadians, not once every four years, but all the time.

Obviously with this kind of history, our party is very interested in real measures that would avoid or lessen undue influence from the large donations of corporations, unions, associations or individuals. It is obviously something that we would be interested in.

However, by its very structure, Bill C-24, the campaign finance reform legislation proposed by the government, while it hints at some improvements, in the end it fails to be the type of positive reform legislation that we can support. It does not, and if we are realistic, it cannot end corruption or inappropriate influence in government. Our fear is that it will serve to weaken an already fragile democratic framework.

First, to be frank, the appearance of this legislation at this time is too driven by internal Liberal politics and needs: the need of the Prime Minister to whitewash various scandals from his record before he retires; the need to deal with his leadership rival within the Liberal Party; and, as stated by the Prime Minister's own principal adviser to his caucus, the need to deal with the bank debts of the Liberal Party itself.

When the Liberal public relations rhetoric is set aside, the true nature of the bill is simply the replacement by the government of its addiction to large business and union donations with an addiction to taxpayer funding.

Ultimately, like so much Liberal political reform legislation, it really is about stopping participation. The bill is really about simply who cannot do what, when they cannot do it, and why they should not be able to do it. It is not in any way, shape or form about encouraging or replacing participation in the political process.

The bill as a consequence will simply require hardworking Canadians to pay for political parties they do not necessarily support.

Fundamentally, it is not democratic for a supporter of the NDP to be forced to back the Canadian Alliance or for a supporter of the Alliance to be forced to back the Liberals. Quite frankly the bill is simply an autocratic solution to a democratic problem.

First, the bill represents a further progression of the public subsidization of political parties. The Prime Minister praises that as a good thing in and of itself, and that is the problem with the Liberal Party. It is a problem of the Liberal Party not just in this, it is the problem of the Liberal Party when it comes to running the economy.

Political parties, like markets, should be responsible to the people who need them and want them, not operate on subsidies from people who do not.

Currently, the public may or may not be aware, that political parties are already very heavily subsidized by taxpayers. In the first place donations to political parties are subsidized, first, by a tax credit system that credits up to 75% of the donation. Then, when candidates and political parties actually spend the money, they are reimbursed for that electoral spending by taxpayers based on minimal electoral performance; for candidates up to 50% of eligible expenditures and for parties, 22.5% of eligible expenditures.

To give some idea of the scale of this, for the 2000 election these so-called rebates cost Canadian taxpayers just over $31 million to refund candidates and $7.5 million to refund political parties for their eligible election expenses. Currently, by this one element alone, taxpayers already subsidize slightly less than 40% of the funding of parties in Canada.

Proposals in the legislation would push that direct subsidization, leaving aside tax credits, to beyond 70%. The legislation would increase taxpayer reimbursement to political parties. The tax credit program is enhanced but more disturbing, so are expense rebates. The percentage of eligible expenditures that is to be refundable to parties has been more than doubled to 50%. The authorized limit of such expenditures has been raised to 70¢ of each registered voter from 62¢. As well, the threshold for receiving the rebates has been lowered for candidates.

Finally, the cost of polling, which is a significant cost, will now count as an eligible expense. Far worse, because that is only the beginning, on top of this enrichment of the current reimbursements for parties, there is now to be a yearly allowance paid to each party which obtains minimal shares of the popular vote. Starting in 2004, each party will be allotted a share of $1.50 times the total number of ballots cast in the last election based on the percentage of the votes they received in the last election.

Obviously, the biggest beneficiary is the Liberals and they will benefit regardless of how people's views of them may change in their performance as a governing party. Admittedly, the Canadian Alliance stands to benefit financially from the allowance. We will benefit especially because this party does not rely heavily on donations from corporations, unions and other large donors. However the principal beneficiary will be the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Liberals could not exist without an alternative source of funding, guaranteed taxpayer funding, if corporate donations were severally limited. Whereas the Canadian Alliance has shown it can and would continue to survive.

For instance, in 2001, the Liberals received donations from fewer than 5,000 individuals which comprised only 19% of their total fundraising. That same year nearly 50,000 individuals contributed to the Canadian Alliance and that made up over 61% of our funding.

It is obvious that the bill serves simply for the Liberals to replace their heavy reliance on corporate donations in particular and union donations, not with donations from the CEOs and union bosses who made those contributions, with subsidies from taxpayers. In fact, the Liberals have structured the bill so that they will actually receive a net benefit from the new rules.

In 2004 the Liberals stand to receive almost $8 million worth of taxpayer money which will replace about $6.5 million they received from corporations, unions and associations, not all of which I should add, will be lost.

In a democracy it is simply wrong to force hard-working Canadians to support political parties. It should be the voters right to choose which parties they support in any given year.

What is needed for real accountability is some financial link between politicians and the individuals who support them. One way of doing that and one way that does exist in the system is the political tax credit system which the bill enhances. This is one proposal worthy of consideration, but even this proposal deserves close examination in committee. Already small and modest contributions to political parties are much more heavily supported by the state, much more generously than charitable contributions. That is something that should be examined.

It is unfortunate that even here there is a flaw. Donors of only $200 to our system face disclosure under this present system in the requirement. There is no possible undue influence from a donation to a political party or candidate of $200. It is simply unnecessary paperwork and exposes, through publication, the names of donors to solicitors and fundraisers of all kinds, something they should not have to face.

I repeat, the real problem is that by strong-arming hard-working Canadians into paying for political parties, the bill will over time distance an already apathetic public from engaging in the political system and our democratic framework will suffer as a consequence. Voter turnout has been constantly falling. In the 2000 election it was the lowest since Confederation and it has been on a steady decline since the 1980s. This trend can only get worse if the legislation is adopted. No politician in any party can afford to be alienated, distanced or not directly accountable to voters.

This is the problem that really concerns me. It is one thing for the government to come here and at least come clean and say that there have been instances of undue influence in the government or in politics in Canada. However it is not a solution to say that taxpayers will fund us regardless. We cannot replace undue influence with no influence whatsoever from the voters as to how their money is spent.

I would point out that there are ample problems. If we look at the limits set out in the bill, there are already ample problems that require study. The bill sets out severe limits for donations to corporations, unions and associations and it has some limits for individuals. This could help deal with problems of undue influence, but let us look at some of the problems.

For example, under the legislation individuals are allowed to contribute up to $10,000 per year per party, plus an additional $10,000 in any one year to leadership contestants of any one party, plus a further contribution of $10,000 to the election campaigns of independent candidates. It stands to reason that average Canadians cannot afford to contribute anywhere close to these amounts annually to political parties. This is a measure designed specifically to capture wealthy Liberal supporters who in the past donated using corporate or union funds at their disposal.

Unfortunately, there are many loopholes for those who really wish to use this to buy influence. For example, the legislation does not set age restrictions for donations. An individual family could contribute $10,000 per year, per party, times the number of family members. Also, although there is an attempt to prohibit indirect contributions, the restrictions limit those contributions to individuals who have filed nomination papers with the returning officer during a writ period. This still allows for unlimited pre-writ donations to an MP's trust to assist his or her re-election, as pre-writ expenses are not regulated by the act.

It is in any case virtually impossible for police to track and enforce the provisions in the bill, which are intended to prevent corporations, unions and others trying to circumvent such limits. The reality is that as long as the government maintains programs and agencies that pay large amounts of discretionary money to particularly the businesses, programs that pick winners and losers, these limits will do little to restrict those with money who wish or who need to influence government and politicians, whether they do so by the terms of the legislation or whether they do so illegally.

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

It would have been better to read the bill.

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southwest, AB]

The government House leader says read the bill. I think the committee will want to study the provisions on MP trust pretty carefully.

Let us talk about transparency. One desirable aspect of the bill is the goal of promoting greater openness and transparency. However here there are real problems. I submit that this legislation pushes beyond what is sensible and may actually weaken the system it attempts to protect.

The bill does not but should, as I said earlier, change some basic rules for disclosing small contributions to parties and candidates. As I noted, the requirement that all $200 donations must be reported to Elections Canada with names of contributors is excessive.

Under the legislation such detailed reporting and disclosure would actually be extended to riding associations, candidates seeking nomination and leadership candidates. This would only add onerous bookkeeping and bureaucratic burdens to local associations and candidates. The thought that donations less than $1,000 could foster or even appear to contribute to undue influence on the political system is preposterous. The government knows it. That is why its tax credit system encourages people to make such donations.

In truth the enhanced measures in the bill would produce very little increased transparency for what is in effect an enormous, unnecessary bureaucratic incursion. More likely, the increased bureaucracy at the local level would have the potential to cause volunteers to become disengaged and disenchanted with the process.

Even more important, I am very concerned that the bill could discourage the participation of people seeking nomination. Under the bill, riding associations are required to file a report with Elections Canada containing the names of candidates who contest the nomination within 30 days of the selection date. Nomination contestants cannot collect donations nor spend any money until they appoint a financial agent and they are required to file a full financial report through their financial agent if they receive more than $500 in total donations or spend more than that money.

These bureaucratic measures will lead to increased costs and additional time. Resources are usually sparse in nominations races, especially among individuals seeking nomination for the first time. This process will simply discourage good people from seeking party nominations. This result will be to further protect incumbents and the status quo.

There is little, if any, value to the public interest from accumulating information on individuals seeking a party position, especially if those contestants fail to win the nomination. Perhaps it could be applicable to a successful nomination contest. When the bill is referred to committee, this is something the Canadian Alliance will raise.

However, let us beware of the U.S. experience. A lot of mythology comes out of this government constantly about the U.S. experience. There are real problems in the United States, some of them the government has identified However the United States has far closer regulation of donations and reporting that could ever be imagined in this country. I know our House leader will go through that in committee.

The real effect of this regulation, especially regulation as a goal in itself, has been to discourage candidacies and discourage competition for nominations. People without the expertise and the connections within the party find it practically impossible to get into the system without being accused of breaking the law.

I cannot leave this discussion without making some reference to the current defect in the Canada Elections Act that discourages increased citizen involvement in the electoral process outside of political parties, something which this bill notably fails to address. I am referring of course, as the government House leader says, to independent third party advertising during election campaigns.

On several occasions, and most recently in 2000, the Liberals have attempted to place limits on the freedom of individuals Canadians to express political views or policy positions during the most advantageous time to use the mass media, the period of elections campaigns. It has at least restricted them to do so unless they go through the major parties.

In each case the courts declared such attempts a violation of the freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and not something that constituted a reasonable limit on such freedoms in a free and democratic society.

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

What is the name of the case in front of the courts?

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southwest, AB]

The government House leader asks what is the name of the case? It is the Harper case, the most recent one, and we will get to that.

It is interesting how little problem the government has talking about this particular case or about cases where it is violating the freedom of expression of citizens yet it clams up when it comes to covering up GST fraud or soft penalties for terrorists.

I say once again, the courts declared each one of these attempts a violation of freedom of expression under the charter of rights and not something that constituted a reasonable limit on such freedoms in a free and democratic society.

The most recent attempt occurred when the Elections Act was amended in the year 2000, on the eve of the last general election. This past November the Alberta court of appeal upheld the initial trial decision striking down and rendering these provisions unconstitutional. As has been noted, this particular litigation was initiated by the National Citizens' Coalition at the time when I served as its president.

Rather than accepting this clear statement of the highest court of Alberta and subsequent lower courts, the federal government has decided to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada at further taxpayer expense. In addition, and despite the clear court ruling--and frankly Elections Canada should hang its head in shame--it is pursuing prosecution of the NCC, a voluntary citizens' organization, for alleged violation of the act in Ontario during the 2000 general election under provisions that have already been declared unconstitutional by senior courts in the country. It is absolutely disgraceful.

To put this all in context, the desire of the government to regulate the participation of ordinary Canadians in the political process is reflected in both its zeal to enforce such limits on independent groups and in this bill by its attempt to over regulate such activity by local riding associations and nomination contestants. The government seems to want to remove the voluntary element from the electoral process and replace it with state regulation, augmented by favouring established parties through massive increases in direct public subsidies.

To conclude, in addition to this government trying to regulate the participation of ordinary Canadians in the political process, this bill will cause troubling changes to the source of contributions to political parties, shifting it from the voluntary act of free citizens to a tax levied on all taxpayers.

In a democratic society, it is unfair for shareholders and unionized workers to contribute to a political party without their consent. However, it is even worse to take this money from taxpayers without their permission.

Let us be clear. We could support, in principle, the provisions of this bill to limit corporate and union contributions. What we are against is replacing corporate and union contributions with forced subsidies from taxpayers. Political parties should learn to depend mostly on contributions from their members.

Frankly, we find it outrageous that the Liberals are describing this bill as a democratic reform. There is nothing democratic about forcing people to give money without their consent. Furthermore, many of these so-called reforms to strengthen our democracy have the exact opposite effect.

This legislation will discourage voluntary initiatives at the local level, creating an even wider gap between voters and politicians, discouraging people from becoming a member of a political party and preserving the status quo.

In summary, in addition to the government's attempt to over regulate the participation of ordinary citizens in the political process, the bill represents a disturbing shift in the sources of political party contributions from voluntary acts of free citizens to mandatory imposition on all taxpayers.

If we look at the provisions of the bill, there can be no doubt. This is a bill designed by the Liberal Party, of the Liberal Party, and for the Liberal Party. For this reason the Canadian Alliance cannot support Bill C-24 in its current form.

Let me conclude by moving the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word “that” with the following:

This House decline to give second reading to Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, because the bill shifts the sources of contributions to political parties from the voluntary actions of people and organizations to a mandatory imposition on all taxpayers, making political parties more dependent upon the state and less responsive to society.

[The Speaker]

The amendment is in order. The question is now on the amendment. The hon. member for Roberval.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are those in life who have decided that evolution is important, that we must move forward, that progress must be made. There are those who wish things to stay as they are and who resolutely refuse to accept progress, in whatever form. Unfortunately, the amendment before us puts our hon. friends in the Canadian Alliance in the latter category.

Today is important. The House has before it an extremely important bill that makes party financing democratic. While the government has made an effort, I must admit, that should be recognized, the official opposition quite simply does not want this bill to be read, improved, and put forward, when in fact what we are supposed to be doing today is debating the principle of it.

I would like to go back to some things that the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech or that were not mentioned by any of the parties up to now, but which, in my mind, should be debated at this time.

The Prime Minister talked about the credibility of politicians. If anyone in this Parliament should be concerned with the credibility of politicians, it is the members, especially members of the opposition. When they say that they will be the next government, that they can do better and they make criticisms, their aim must be to improve the image of politicians.

The credibility of politicians has taken a hit in the past several years because, aptly enough, the crux of our work is to do battle. The success of one side resides in its ability to show that the other side has not done a good job, is wrong or has gone down the wrong path. That is the way the political battle works.

Consequently, it is understandable that those having this difficult job for many years inevitably end up leaving battered and wounded and wishing that somehow the situation would improve.

In politics, funding is a very sensitive issue. You would have to have blinders on to think that these astronomical contributions from banks or large unions did not buy these sponsors the attention of a particular audience. It would be ridiculous to think that major corporations would give $200,000 or $250,000 to a political party just for the pleasure of squandering that kind of money.

Companies quickly realized that they could buy their way into select, powerful circles. That is what René Lévesque wanted to eradicate from Quebec in 1976. And that is what he did with the Loi sur le financement des partis politiques.

Since the Prime Minister graciously underscored the impact Mr. Lévesque had on democracy, I will be just as gracious and say that at the end of his career, the Prime Minister has had the courage to do something which will reflect positively on the reputation of all the politicians who sit in this House.

This gesture will reassure Canadians that in the future, companies will no longer, as they did in the past, have undue influence on the government or on those who one day hope to form the government.

Parliament has just emerged from a major crisis, namely the sponsorship scandal. Unfortunately—and this was not one of the Prime Minister's shining moments—we saw the very close ties that existed between firms that obtained extremely lucrative contracts, in defiance of all the criteria, for work that was never done or done very quickly and at an exaggerated cost.

Unfortunately, just by chance, these companies happened to be among the biggest donors to the Liberal Party. Companies that had committed all manner of acts—some likely to lead to legal proceedings—were found to be close buddies of ministers, politicians here in this House with government responsibilities. There is cause for concern. It seems to be very much a case of “you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours”.

I welcome this initiative. Today's bill will have the considerable advantage of making it absolutely impossible for companies with close connections to the government to do as they did in 2000-01, making quite sizeable donations and then—just by chance—reaping quite considerable benefits months or even weeks later. It was always the same ones involved.

The undue influence of those who hold the purse strings is a reality. No one would like to waste considerable sums of money without the assurance of gaining a sympathetic ear. And that sometimes means undue benefits.

Today's bill, which addresses the same points as the legislation we have had in place in Quebec for the past 25 years, will ensure that these influences will not have, truly will no longer have, any place in politics.

Another principle defended by Quebec's legislation and respected by the government's bill is equity. In fact, what could be fairer for people, for those listening, than knowing that they could go into politics and defend their ideas in a democratic forum, and that everyone would have an equal opportunity thanks to this bill.

In fact, it will not be enough to cozy up to large corporations to get the upper hand in an election campaign, to monopolize the media and be able to afford the best ads; it will no longer be essential to cozy up to large corporations to have access to the tools that everyone should have access to.

All the political parties, equally, based on merit and on the public's interest in them, will receive modest but sufficient financing.

When I hear the Canadian Alliance tell us that it is unfair that taxpayers be asked to finance political parties, I say that taxpayers are being asked to pay for democracy. When taxpayers no longer pay for democracy, democracy will be no more. That is the reality.

The public already pays for all of Parliament's activities. The public, through taxes, tax deductions granted for contributions, already finances the political parties represented in this House. We should stop putting our heads in the sand, stopping hiding, stop pretending that this is not true.

The Canadian Alliance is financed by Canadian taxpayers because they get tax receipts. In their tax return, people can claim deductions and get back up to 75% of their contributions. That is the reality. All the political parties in the House are financed this way.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Those who, in the Canadian Alliance, are shouting that this is not true, are breaking the law. Those who do not comply with the current Canada Elections Act are breaking the law.

I hope that everyone will admit that taxpayers are financing each of the political parties represented in the House.

With this bill, financing will be based more—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Elk Island on a point of order.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for the delay, but I am fully dependent on the interpreters, so this happened probably half a minute ago. The member accused us of acting illegally. That is patently untrue. He ought not to say that in the House. It is against the rules of the House.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to repeat it very slowly so that the member and everyone can fully understand what I meant when I said that the political parties in this House were already funded by money from Canadian taxpayers. I explained that the current Elections Act not only allows political parties to accept contributions, but requires them to report them, to submit a funding report. This allows those who contribute to claim a more or less sizeable tax credit based on the contribution they made. That is what I said.

When members booed me for saying that taxpayers are already paying for political party funding, when they protested and said that is not true, I answered back that was a problem, because if citizens are not contributing to any member here in the House through their taxes, then they are acting illegally, because the law is clear.

Funding is not done under the table. Either members are not aware that they are already being funded by the public purse, or else they have a whopping legal problem on their hands. The members can choose for themselves, but in either case, it is pretty serious.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

To conclude the point of order, I hope the explanation that has been supplied is satisfactory to the hon. member for Elk Island, because basically the Bloc House leader said that all political contributions need to be reported on the income tax report and if they are not that is when it becomes illegal. I thought the explanation was quite clear.