Debates of Feb. 11th, 2003

Canada Elections Act

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the explanation you allowed me to give was part of my argument on a point of order.

I will pick up where I left off before the member interrupted me, and mention that the element of transparency, which is also included in this bill, will make it easier to know the sources supporting each party.

It would be extremely important for the government to require private individuals—who are authorized to donate up to $10,000 to a political party under this bill—to identify their employer. We will submit amendments to this effect.

It could happen that 25 employees from one engineering firm or any professional firm, each decide to give $10,000 to a political party. This would result in a very significant contribution of $250,000 and there would be no way to find out where these people work unless you did some cross-checking.

I think that it would be in everyone's best interests for the government to amend the bill so that the sponsor's name, address, contact information, and employer are indicated, which would probably help us to avoid this situation.

We will also make recommendations about sums and conditions. These are minor things that do not detract from the principle or the quality of the legislation or the need to adopt such legislation. However, I think it would be appropriate to make some adjustments in order to improve and accomplish even more of the government's objectives, which we support.

I am concerned about the issue of individual trust funds. I checked in the political funding and trust funds play an extremely important role. I know that the provisions of the bill are meant to prohibit contributions from individual trust funds in riding associations. There can no longer be payments of $60, $70, $75 or $50,000 made from trust funds.

But, unless the government has anything else to add, there are no provisions to eliminate individual trust funds. The fate of these trust funds is completely unclear. As I understand it, there can be quasi-political activities in the riding of the member who has the trust fund. This still needs to be clarified.

I know that it is probably not the government's intention to cause confusion over the trust funds, but there can be no shadow of doubt or problems will persist.

We are also extremely disappointed that the Liberal Party and Conservative Party leadership campaigns, which are currently under way, will not be covered by the provisions of this extraordinary bill. This means that the future leader of the Liberals—who, as we know, has had great success in amassing funds across Canada in recent years—is avoiding all the lovely provisions of this bill, which guarantees democracy, quality of representation, and the independence of individuals and political parties.

Unfortunately, the next leader of the Liberal Party, whoever he or she may be, will not be as pure as the driven snow, will not be covered by the provisions of this bill. That is unless candidates decide, in a gesture of altruism, to apply to themselves all that is contained in this bill in advance. This would be an extraordinary act. Unfortunately, it is our impression that it is very unlikely.

We find it regrettable that the government has not set some timeframes that give the signal to those already involved in fundraising, sometimes pretty heavy fundraising, by telling them, “Beware, the bill is about to be passed, and as soon as it is, it will apply to you. So begin now to comply with its provisions and demonstrate, through your behaviour, at least some sense of ethics”.

While we are at it, if we want to imitate Quebec's legislation, perhaps we should use all of its good points. I would have liked this bill to include certain things. I will be proposing amendments to this effect.

While we are at it, if we want to make political financing more democratic, we should use this opportunity to provide access for everyone to the political process, to ensure that everyone has equal opportunities, and to make the process transparent. Perhaps we should have seized this opportunity to do what was done in Quebec and depoliticize the position of returning officers in the ridings.

It would have been nice if returning officers were chosen based on their skills from now on, if there were a test of their skills, as is the case in Quebec, instead of choosing them based on their ties to the governing party and having political appointees in jobs that should be above suspicion.

I would like to see the government continue its work. I would like the Prime Minister to go a bit further in what he is doing, and include in the bill on political financing all of these provisions to depoliticize the returning officers' positions.

It is our pleasure to support this bill. I think that the principles it sets out are excellent. As for the details, we will be proposing amendments in due course. That belongs to another stage of the process. I hope that we will all be satisfied with the process and come out better for passing this bill, because it will enhance the reputations of all politicians.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, National Parks.

Starting with the next speaker, speeches will last 20 minutes, followed by a ten minute period for questions and comments. The Chair would appreciate it if members would indicate if they will be sharing their time with a colleague.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be sharing my time this evening but I am pleased to be the lead speaker for New Democratic Party.

I gather that we are speaking to the amendment to Bill C-24, that the House decline to give second reading to the bill, which was introduced by the Canadian Alliance. We will be voting against the amendment.

I would like to make a small prediction. Like the pensions for members of Parliament, the Canadian Alliance will vote against and then quietly accept the public largess that will follow.

Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, is highly complex legislation with many technical changes because the amendments to the Canada Elections Act, instead of being a complete code within themselves, are amendments and this adds to the complexity of it.

Basically, the bill before us today, as we have heard from the Prime Minister, is being distributed to us as a way to remove big money from the political process. We in the New Democratic Party support the bill in principle. We support the idea of it. We had a convention last month in Toronto and passed a resolution similar to what is being proposed today.

I note in passing that in the minority government period of 1972-74, the New Democratic Party leader of the day, David Lewis, secured the passage of the Election Expenses Act which set, for the first time, spending limits on national and district campaigns and expanded public access to the source and amounts of contributions of all political parties. That was a very good beginning. We have not had very much in the quarter century or almost 30 years since then. However the bill does build on the work of David Lewis and that minority Parliament back in the 1972-74 period.

We start from the premise that the only people who should be allowed to contribute to political parties are those who are actually eligible to vote at election time. That would exclude organizations, corporations and trade unions. We think that is a good, fundamental way in which to begin.

As the House knows, currently political contributions are allowed unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, trade unions and other organizations and, as I said, with no limit on the amount of money that can be contributed.

Because of that, we have the perception that money buys status and influence, that money talks, as the Prime Minister himself said. Companies give thousands of dollars, as we have noted, and tend to give dollars to parties that are likely to win the election or are up for re-election. Therein lies some of the problems that we have witnessed in this Parliament and some of the things that need to be redressed and fixed.

The heritage minister herself has indicated that the ratification of the Kyoto protocol was delayed by the government because of the lobby from big businesses to delay and frustrate the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

With the bill that is before us today, I think it will reduce, if not eliminate, those kinds of peculiarities and problems. Bill C-24 requires that only individuals can contribute to political parties. They can make financial contributions to registered parties, to constituency associations, to leadership candidates and nomination contestants. It is capped at $10,000 in total to a registered party, its electoral district association, candidate and nomination contestants.

I want to stop here to say that the $10,000 should be a total aggregate amount of money. It should not be possible for a wealthy individual to give $10,000 per annum to all five of the parties that have status in the House, plus the other registered parties, even if the individual has the wherewithal to do that. That certainly does not remove the perception of big money and influencing politics.

We will be looking for an amendment that would cap that at $10,000 as the total amount of money if the individual wishes to contribute to more than one political party, but certainly not $10,000 to all.

The bill would prohibit corporations, trade unions and associations from donating money to any political party or leadership candidate. They may, however, contribute to a maximum of $1,000 collectively to a party's candidate, nomination contestants and constituency associations. I think this is a bit of a sop to perhaps the government backbenchers who have been concerned that they would not be able to raise any money from an organization, a small business or a trade union that is in their riding.

On balance, we will not raise much objection but when we begin to make changes, even modifications, along this line it does open up the possibility of finding more loopholes. On balance, I would prefer that this were not in the legislation but we will not object beyond that.

We are pleased to take part in the debate because we know that Canadians want a real debate in the financing of political parties. We know that Canadians overwhelmingly want government and political parties to clean up their act in this money buying spree that we have seen, particularly on the government side last year.

As I indicated, the New Democratic Party has long called for removing big money. We certainly support the bill in principle but we do have specific amendments and, as is often said, the devil is in the details. We will be proposing important amendments to the committee but we do support the bill in principle.

It is worth noting, from our perspective, that about 60% of the donations made to the New Democratic Party do come from individual donors, people who give $10, $20, $30, $50 or $100 to our party and to our candidates. That situation stands in stark contrast to what the Liberal Party has enjoyed in recent years: 60% of its donations come from the business community and only 32% from individuals.

Our political enemies always take every opportunity to point out that the New Democratic Party is overwhelmingly supported by the trade union movement. We are proud of the special and unique partnership with the labour movement. That was how the New Democratic Party was founded back in the early 1960s. We are and remain full partners with the labour movement, and, yes, unions do support us, but to a far lesser extent than most people believe. About 30% of our donations come from the trade union movement but the overwhelming amount, 60%, comes from individual donors.

The legislation would allow individuals to donate $10,000 a year to any party. Individuals could donate in multiples of $10,000. For example, one wealthy individual could give $10,000 to each of the five parties in the House. We believe that is far too high, and that donations of that magnitude could still buy considerable influence. It flies in the face of removing the perception of big money influencing politics. We think that even the $10,000 level is too high. I heard the rationale from the Prime Minister. He said that $10,000 was about what $3,000 was worth back in the 1970s when René Lévesque brought this legislation to Quebec. That is a fair point but it still strikes me that it is a large amount of money.

Furthermore, the limit, whatever it will be, should be the total amount that can be donated to all parties in aggregate, not the amount that can be donated to each party. If we say that we are going to get big money out of politics, then let us not fool around. Let us actually do it.

The bill prohibits contributions to political parties from corporations, unions or associations. As a minor exception, it proposes permitting such organizations to contribute $1,000 annually to the aggregate of candidates' local associations and nomination contestants of a registered party. In other words, all contributions from corporations, unions and other associations are combined under the $1,000 limit.

We are checking on this and it may not prove to be a valid concern, but we wonder whether a trade union with many locals will be considered as one unit no matter how many locals it has, as compared to perhaps an automobile dealership that may be considered as a separate entity, with each of those dealerships in the Ford Motor Company, let us say, being able to donate $1,000.

We want to make sure of this in the legislation. We will be asking some questions to ensure that there is a level playing field, that everybody is operating on the same level and that we are not treating unions and corporations differently just because they are set up differently under the various acts.

Trust funds were mentioned earlier in the debate. We know or are aware of some members of the government side who have amassed pretty impressive trust funds, upwards of a quarter of a million dollars. It is not entirely clear to us how the legislation is going to impact on those trust funds.

It seems that while this legislation will not in any way prohibit the trust funds, the intent is that the people who control the funds will be restricted to the $1,000 maximum annual donation to a candidate's riding association or candidate for nomination.

We fear that there will be an enormous temptation for members of Parliament with these trust funds to find ways to slip money over and above the annual maximum into their own good political work and campaigns. We firmly believe that there is no place for trust funds in politics. We know that there are some political parties in the House that do not allow candidates to amass or to begin a trust fund. I would appeal to the members opposite on the government side to take the steps necessary to see that these funds are dismantled now.

This would be a good time to dismantle trust funds when we are changing the Canada Elections Act and putting strict limits on donations. Let us get rid of these trust funds. The Prime Minister makes a good point: if we want them to be donated to universities, hospitals or other good works, let us do that. However, let us get trust funds out of the Canadian political system.

Another area is the area of third parties. This is not really addressed in the legislation. We know that third party advertising has had an enormous impact on politics and elections in other countries, particularly in the United States with all of the so-called soft money that goes into advertising there. Those of us who were around in 1988 also remember the famous free trade election and the barrage of third party advertising to support the free trade agreement with the United States.

It could be argued, because it was a very close election, that the third party advertising played a disproportionate role in the outcome and may have thwarted the democratic will of the majority of Canadians. Of course, proportional representation would have helped a lot too, because we will recall that the government of Mr. Mulroney was returned with about 42% of the popular vote while the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party had a combined vote of about 58%. However, because of our first past the post rules, the Conservative Party had an overwhelming majority. A combination of the lack of proportional representation plus third party advertising did contribute heavily to the outcome of that election.

If the government truly wants to remove the perception that big money rules politics, then I think it is imperative to limit the amount of money that third parties can spend during elections and on politics generally. Yes, I am thinking of the National Citizens' Coalition, which the leader of the official opposition mentioned earlier, and of other organizations with deep pockets and not much accountability.

The current election act limits expenditures by third parties, but several elections back, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the National Citizens' Coalition. Unlike the leader of the official opposition, I am pleased that the federal government is appealing that ruling. The limits on third party advertising have effectively been ignored heretofore as a result of that court ruling.

As an aside, let me say that I think it will be more difficult for the Judge Muldoons of the world to argue in favour of no limits on third party advertising when the political parties themselves pass this piece of legislation and restrict themselves, not only to the amounts of money they can accept but from whom they can accept that money. Not being a lawyer, I obviously do not know, but that is my faint prediction when it comes to third party advertising. I am glad the government is appealing that decision.

The concern is that Bill C-24 does not deal adequately with third party expenditures. Its intent is to remove the influence of big money from politics and that will be severely undercut if third parties are free and able to spend whatever they want.

Once this legislation comes into effect, it will confine political parties to accepting only individual contributions. At the same time, if third parties can continue to raise unlimited amounts of money at election time when candidates and parties are bound by the new restrictions, then we will simply be making a travesty out of the commitment to remove big money from politics.

I will briefly talk about public funding for parties between elections and at election time. It is premised in the bill that some of that money has to be replaced. If we do not allow corporations, trade unions and other organizations to donate, then we have to deal with that. Bill C-24 does so by proposing that $1.50 per vote go to each party, based on the previous election. Some people say that is handicapping the outcome of the last election. In a horse race, weights are usually put on the favourite to slow that horse down, but as has been pointed out, about $7.8 million will go to the governing party under this proposal based on the results of the last election. Lower amounts will go to the five political parties. I think that we are prepared to accept that arrangement and, as an aside, to assure the Liberals and anyone else that in the next election the New Democratic Party will be receiving many more votes than it did in the November 2000 election.

I do note that there is no provision in this legislation to index these publicly funded amounts, so they will decrease over time. It is worth noting that contributions from individuals, corporations and unions are indexed on the $1,000 side. We believe that public funding should be looked at and considered for indexation as well.

In conclusion, the New Democratic Party does support the legislation in principle. Given the hostile comments we have heard this afternoon from the official opposition and what we have not heard from some members on the Liberal backbench, perhaps the Prime Minister is going to need all the support he can muster. However, we will be putting forward amendments because there are flaws in this piece of legislation and we look forward to the debate when we get to committee stage.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I noticed that the member from the NDP referenced the 1988 election and the per cent of the vote at that time, but I thought he might have referenced the 2000 election, which actually had the same result. There were different numbers for all the parties involved, but again there was a majority government with 40% of the vote in the country and roughly 60% of the vote going to other parties.

My question is with regard to the $10,000 donation per individual and the $1,000 donation per corporation. I do not see that this prevents the same type of fundraising between elections that we have always had and that all the political parties participate in. I am talking about fundraising involving a dinner and the cost of a plate at that dinner being $250, $500 or $1,000 for individuals who want to buy a plate or a table. Those major fundraisers would not be precluded. Individual parties will still have to do some fundraising between elections.

Although I am certain that the premise of the bill is a good thing, I am not certain about all the details. I would like a comment from the member.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for South Shore for his question. First, with regard to why I did not talk about the 2000 election campaign as opposed to 1988's, the member is correct. The point I tried to make was that in regard to the 1988 election campaign I think there is a general consensus that there was a lot of interest from people who were proponents of reaching a free trade agreement with the United States. They, and they being largely corporate Canada, were putting a lot of time, effort and particularly money into the campaign to ensure that the government of the day would be returned and free trade would become a reality.

In fairness, in the 2000 election campaign we did not have those kinds of issues, but the point still remains that proportional representation would have been helpful in both elections because we did elect a majority government with a minority amount of the vote.

With regard to the thrust of the member's question on individual donations, yes, I think obviously we are going to continue to have fundraising. Individuals, if they are so inclined and so endowed, will be able to contribute up to $10,000 a year. The point is that a corporation, a trade union or an organization will be prohibited from donating to any political party, but they will be allowed to make a maximum aggregate donation of $1,000 to a candidate or to a constituency, a New Democratic Party or a Progressive Conservative Party constituency.

That, as I tried to indicate in my speech, is a bit of a gift to some of the Liberal backbenchers. When the bill was floated, we will recall that the president of the Liberal Party said it was as “dumb as a bag of hammers”. Other people have been complaining about it too. I think this was a bit of a gift to them to try to alleviate some of their concerns with the bill. Fundamentally what the government is saying by introducing the legislation is that trade unions, corporations and organizations will not be able to donate money to political parties themselves, that only individuals will, and that is worthy of support.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the comments from the member for Palliser. He mentioned one particular item that may have fallen through the cracks and that was about the control of the trust funds, the members' trust funds that are there or not there. I have looked through the legislation and cannot see any of those controls that we should be talking about with respect to some members of Parliament who have trust funds, I am told, and fairly large trust funds at that.

What is the opinion of the member for Palliser as to why that has not been dealt with? The Prime Minister stood in the House and talked about transparency. He talked about how Canadians want to make sure that their members of Parliament are accountable. Why is it that this, in my opinion, glaring omission has happened in this piece of legislation?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could help my colleague from Brandon--Souris as to why it is not in there. Obviously being on the opposite side of the floor from the government, I cannot really answer. I think it is an omission. Perhaps, with the goodwill of the government that is introducing the bill, it is something that we can deal with.

I firmly believe it should be in the bill. Otherwise I think this will be open to all kinds of shenanigans about how to get around the law. Some might say that if it is only $1,000 surely there must be some way to funnel money in the back door. I think the best way to deal with it would be for the political parties that have these backbenchers or cabinet ministers, or whoever it is who has these trust funds, to say to them very clearly, directly and distinctly, “Get rid of them because they have no place, and as we are amending the law with Bill C-24, let us do away with them”.

As I said before, take the $246,000 that is apparently in one member's trust account and donate it to a university, hospital or charity of his choice, but let us get rid of it now.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I missed part of the member's speech. I do not think he addressed this question, but I will ask in any case and perhaps he can clarify it for me.

The Canadian Alliance position is that we agree with the concept of not allowing big corporations and union organizations to make massive donations to political parties, but we also do not believe that those donations should be replaced by the taxpayers' purse.

If corporations were prepared to give money and that has been cut off, that should be replaced by people who are shareholders in the corporation, let us say, should they choose to donate to a particular party. Likewise, with union organizations, we say that it should be replaced by the union workers who are members of that organization choosing individually to donate to political parties or individuals. That would be the replacement rather than going to the taxpayers' purse and having them donate whether they want to or not.

Would he agree with that kind of replacement of the funds?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

No, Madam Speaker, I would not agree with that analysis, but I do agree to this extent that there is no question that all of the political parties are going to continue to raise funds, but from individuals. We are going to go out and talk to union members and other ordinary Canadians and ask them to continue to support us with their $10, $20 and $30 donations.

I think if the member from the Canadian Alliance were to look, he would find that his party receives about the same percentage amount of donations from individuals, as the New Democratic Party does, which is around 60%. His leader said 61% in the House earlier this afternoon.

Clearly, each of those two parties has a base of individual support. We are going to continue to reach out, build the base, and raise money from the base. At the same time the political parties are losing the wherewithal from unions, corporations, and other organizations to raise money. We think the principle of some public funds to offset what we are losing at the other end is worthwhile.

This is an extension of public financing of political parties. This is something that was begun in 1974. There has been a grand hiatus, but now we are into something that is new. It is definitely a step in the right direction and worthy of our support.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow the member for Palliser. I was particularly interested when he was speaking about his intimate knowledge of horse racing. That would suggest to me that he is not a member who would parade his piety before the House. Unfortunately, sometimes his party does.

Hearing him refer to the bill of 1972-74 and the role of the hon. David Lewis, I must add that I had the privilege of serving on that committee at that time and, not to make too much of a point of it, one of the amendments that we were able to get adopted despite rigorous opposition from the NDP was an amendment which would have covered contributions by governments to political parties. The reason the NDP was so opposed to that amendment was that it was then briefly in government in the province of British Columbia. But sanity prevailed and the bill survived.

My caucus and I support the principle of campaign finance reform. We agree that there is an urgent need to modernize the rules. However, we believe that the bill, Bill C-24, may well create as many problems as it purports to solve.

I know the debate at this stage is on the amendment and let me be clear about the amendment. It asks the House to decline to give second reading to the bill; in other words, to kill the bill and stop reform. That is a very interesting position to be taken by a party that was originally elected to the House by embracing principles of reform.

When the Leader of the Opposition spoke he outlined several concerns of detail, consequence, and inadequacy of the drafting of the bill that we share. I think members on all sides of the House are concerned about the implications of what is in the bill and also implications of things that are not. We want to take a very close look at that in committee.

However, the amendment proposed by the Canadian Alliance would kill the bill and that would be wrong. What Parliament should do is improve the legislation that is here. Consequently, we will be voting against the Canadian Alliance amendment.

I find it strange that a party that was so proudly populace in its origins would defend a status quo which better serves the interests of the National Citizens' Coalition than it does the interests of free democracy.

Everyone knows the bill was introduced in haste and with a hidden agenda. Had the Prime Minister believed in the principle of party finance reform, he would have consulted broadly and acted long ago, acted early enough that the new rules would have applied to him too and not just to others. What we have here today is one more instance of the Prime Minister lunging after a legacy as he leaves his position in public life. In fact, his legacy in Canadian public life is the double standard and this is just another example.

I was struck that the Prime Minister began his remarks by attacking the system, not in this country but in the United States. There is almost a pathological anti-Americanism about the Prime Minister that is particularly inappropriate at this time.

We have a bill that offers a chance for reforms the country needs. Our task now is to make this careless bill significantly better. Canadians are understandably concerned about the role of money in politics.

Last Friday, the public works minister revealed that the RCMP would widen its investigation into Groupaction and related cases. The government tries to blame these events on public servants, although no one believes that public servants would have acted without clear direction from political ministers.

If we were truly interested in the good reputation of politics, the House would find a way to hold those ministers to account. What is at issue here is that the Groupaction scandals are a tip of the iceberg of impropriety which accumulates when political influence and political favours are for sale. There has been a pattern of abuse starting in the government with Shawinigate, leading to resignations, cabinet shuffles, and appointments that are an abuse of our diplomatic service. In all cases the core issue has been the relationship between the public official and backroom financial supporters.

Of course, not all public officials are susceptible to this kind of influence, but the system is weak on two levels. First, it is too open to temptation and, second, these days, perception is an important part of politics. Canadians believe that money can influence the course of events. Even without an experienced minister, like the Minister of Canadian Heritage, saying that money held up the Kyoto accord.

Solutions are twofold. We can legislate with respect to donors and contribution amounts, and we can legislate how these amounts are spent and publicly disclosed.

When I responded to the government House leader's statement introducing the bill I noted that my colleagues and I would be taking a very close look at the details. It is a good thing that we did. It is always the case that the devil is in the details, but there are a number of concerns in the bill, many enumerated already in the early moments of this debate.

What I hope is that all members of the House will be free to consider seriously the weaknesses of the bill and will be free to improve it. The worst thing that would happen in the name of parliamentary reform would be if legislation were rushed in, have party whips imposed upon it, and there would be an inability on the part of the House to build on reforms that would be more effective than are in the present bill.

Let me deal with four serious weaknesses in the proposal as we see it that were introduced by the government House leader and by the Prime Minister today.

The first weakness concerns the regulatory burden on parties and local riding associations. That regulatory burden is simply impossible to bear. These provisions have the odour of regulations written by people who have never personally participated in political campaigns and may not even recognize what babies they are throwing out with the bathwater. I doubt that any party is strong enough in all 301 constituencies in the country to file the reports to Elections Canada that this new bill would require.

The second is through a question, why ban corporate and union donations to parties outright? Why not, instead, tighten disclosure rules and cap corporate and union donations, possibly at the same level as those allowed for individuals? That would ensure transparency and accountability, but it would maintain the freedom of organizations to support the political party of their choice.

During my party's annual meeting in August, we proposed substantial improvements to the system's transparency. We proposed that parties disclose their incomes every quarter, like any other business in Canada, that contributions received by riding associations be included in these quarterly reports and that the internal party leadership races be subject to more or less the same rules as political parties in general.

Third, the government is introducing rules governing political activity at the national level through the national party, and at the local levels through the riding associations, but most parties have regional conglomerations of riding associations, youth associations, campus clubs, women's associations and other such groups that are neither the main party nor a riding association. On all of these, Bill C-24 is virtually silent. The government therefore is either creating a number of loopholes or it is creating a bureaucratic and regulatory nightmare for those who will be responsible for monitoring and enforcing such provisions.

Fourth, the political parties would get an allowance to compensate for losing the financial support of businesses and unions. However, internal leadership races would be subject to different rules.

Members of this House simply have to consider how parties would conduct leadership races. We cannot pretend they are unimportant. This Government of Canada has been stopped in its tracks by a leadership race in its own ranks, a race that is being decided not by a healthy competition among contending candidates but by the fact that one has been able to accumulate immense amounts of money and consequently has an unfair advantage. This is public business. It is a matter of public interest. We in the House have to find some way to look at the conduct of leadership races.

There is no question that the means of financing political parties needs drastic reform. I have spoken in the House, as others have, of the influence of big money. That danger exists in fact and, as important, and we would be fools to ignore it, it exists in perception. There is a very strong sense among ordinary Canadians that the political system, the party system, does not merit their confidence or support because it is controlled by powerful interests.

But I want to make another case. There has been another growing and significant change in our system that has made reform of party financing more urgent: the growth over time and the power of special interest groups. Special interests have always been part of politics, always a legitimate part, from labour unions to business to organizations mobilized to fight a particular cause. But in an earlier time, when the present system of party financing took root, the influence of special interests was balanced and often overweighed by a powerful sense of the common interest.

Many individuals and organizations that contributed to political parties invested in a democratic system. They demanded accountability. They wanted to be able to chose between the parties. They thought that one candidate or another had a good chance of making a contribution to public life. They knew that all this would cost money and their donations were motivated in part by the feeling that they were doing their civic duty.

That of course was not the whole story. There have always been interests and individuals who sought to buy influence for themselves or for their views, but when the present system was built, one of its foundations was a sense of a public interest that was more important than private interests.

That balance has changed. Our political system has changed. The weight of private interests has grown. The sense of public interest has declined. That is why the lobbying industry, which virtually did not exist in Canada 30 years ago, is so powerful today. The reality now is that in this capital city good lobbyists have much more influence than good members of Parliament.

That raises a very serious question for the Canadian political system. Special interests, by definition, fracture community. They put particular interests ahead of the whole.

Historically in Canada, two institutions performed the function of knitting together different claims and putting the public interest first. Government itself was one of those institutions. The other was political parties, particularly political parties that were national in their reach and in their ambition.

It is not healthy for the public interest to have the role of parties decline and the role of lobbyists and special interests fill the vacuum. That is a large issue of which this question of party funding is one important element, because the present situation allows the enfeeblement of political parties. It makes it much more difficult for them to perform their task of drawing together the interests of the whole community.

These reforms outlined here today would allow us to make a step in the direction of reasserting the public interest. These issues are central to the health of our democracy. It is clear that the status quo does not work. It invites very real cynicism in the country. The Minister of Canadian Heritage testified to that effect the other day when she said that financial considerations and the interests of contributors held up the timetable on Kyoto. There is no doubt that the present system invites abuse.

This bill is only a beginning. It is hasty. It was introduced without adequate consultation. It is incomplete. It is badly drafted. It needs substantial amendment. However, that is the business of this House. My party and I will support the bill at this reading and encourage the widest possible opportunity for members of all parties in the House to improve it in committee and elsewhere by considering and debating amendments.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the right hon. gentleman's comments. I certainly believe that no one in the House has more experience, statesmanship and ability in regard to putting forward comments to the House of Commons.

The member mentioned at the very close of his dissertation that the status quo is simply not the way to go. We also heard from the Canadian Alliance, which wishes us to maintain the status quo with no changes whatsoever.

We agree that the House of Commons has to reform political contributions. Certainly the concept of that not being the status quo has been put forward. The right hon. member has indicated that we are prepared to take this forward to committee. However, he talked about some problems that we should be able to deal with.

Does the right hon. member believe, from past experience with this government in particular, that the government will be open minded with respect to changes for some of the flaws in this legislation? One we talked about today and which was not mentioned in the right hon. member's speech is that of the trust funds. That seems to be a black hole that still remains.

Does the right hon. member honestly believe that we will be able to convince the governing party of the day to make this legislation better so that Canadians would accept it for what it really is, a reform for the betterment of the way we operate the House of Commons?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question by the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

Certainly past practice would suggest that the government will clamp down on members of other parties and members of its own party who want to reform the bill, but this is a rather unusual bill. The Prime Minister claims that it is a matter of great importance to him, a question of principle, a reform that needs to be introduced. He admitted in his remarks, as I heard them, that there are imperfections in the bill, that it needs to be changed.

I hope he will not succumb to the bad habit of limiting debate and limiting the ability of members on his side of the House and this side of the House to improve the bill that is brought before us. This is too important a matter to let fall victim to the party whip or the party whim of the Liberal Party. It can make a significant change in the way the political system works and the way the political system is seen.

I would hope that there will be, particularly among members of the Liberal Party themselves, an insistence upon a right to amend the bill and not have Parliament's capacity to debate it limited.

There is one other point. I think I heard someone from the Alliance saying they are not against the bill. They have introduced an amendment that would kill the bill. That seems to me a fairly dramatic way of indicating that they are against it.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know it is a long way down there to where the fifth party sits, but I still thought the members would be able to hear what the Canadian Alliance has been saying.

Both the speaker who just spoke and the Conservative's one sole member from what is considered western Canada have said that the Canadian Alliance is for the status quo. I do not know where they were hiding when the Canadian Alliance made it extremely clear that its members support the bill's concept of doing away with big corporate, union and organization donations, but instead of going to the taxpayer's purse, they should be replaced by having people who are shareholders of those corporations make individual donations, and by having the workers who contribute their money to the unions instead deciding whether or not they wish to contribute and, if so, to whom.

I would ask the hon. member if he supports that kind of concept. Does he think that corporations still should be allowed to give large sums of money to political parties? Or indeed, does he support what the government is proposing, which is that we replace these corporations and unions by just forcing the taxpayer to pay us money whether they want to or not?

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

Madam Speaker, I believe there should be caps on contributions. As I said in my remarks, I think that some of the caps being proposed should be looked at.

I hope the Canadian Alliance does in fact have proposals that it will bring forward as amendments, but let me say that I am not putting words in its members' mouths. I am quoting from the amendment that was just introduced by their leader. Their leader's amendment states that “This House decline to give second reading...”. That is pretty categoric. The position of the Canadian Alliance is to kill the bill. The position of the party previously known as Reform is to kill reform. I find that odd, but they are entitled to their position.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. I also listened to the member for Palliser when the original discussion about trust funds was brought forward.

The issue of trust funds is certainly one that is not dealt with in this package, or at least to my knowledge, and a number of individual Liberal backbenchers who are not even ministers of the crown have substantial trust funds of at least a few hundred thousand dollars. There also are riding associations that have a couple of hundred thousand dollars in their accounts and trust funds.

Certainly there was a former minister of industry in this House, whom I think we can name now, from Newfoundland, who was reputed to have $2.5 million in his trust fund when he left politics. Some of that would have been promises that would have been met had he actually run for the leadership, but much of that would have been cash in the form of cheques and cash from fundraisers.

I have no idea where the transparency is on any of the trust funds. The member for LaSalle—Émard, if we read the press clippings, is reputed to have $8 million ready to fight a campaign just for the leadership of the Liberal Party.

I really do not see any provisions in the bill to limit these trust accounts. These trust accounts are no more than retirement packages for many members. Somehow or another, if we are going to really do something about parliamentary reform and the financing of political parties, then we also have to do something about financial reform in the financing of the retirement packages of individual members of Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Shore. Earlier I neglected to answer the question about trust funds. I do not believe there is a provision in the bill and there should be.

The key is transparency. The public has to be able to look at what we are doing and have some confidence that we are behaving in an appropriate way.

The sprouting of trust funds, in particular in the amounts mentioned by the hon. member, only leads to cynicism and suspicion. That is deadly to a democracy like ours. We have to find ways in committee, among other challenges, to build in transparency with regard to circumstances that led trust funds to be developed.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today and speak to the bill. If you could indulge me for just a moment, I would like to say that this is a great opportunity today in the House to have this legislation come forward, but it also is the first time I have been able to speak in the House as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

I would like to take a moment to pass on my greatest thanks to the many people who phoned and offered notes of congratulations on the position. It is a great honour. I am very proud. The fact that the Prime Minister was so gracious in acknowledging me and selecting me as his parliamentary secretary is a significant acknowledgement of the respect that he holds for the people of Cape Breton and the people of Bras d'Or—Cape Breton.

I also want to make reference to the Prime Minister's speech today in the House. I think it is significant to see just how committed he is, in his final months in the House, to bringing back the integrity of elected officials and of the House into the backyards of Canadians. It is not that often that he takes the opportunity to speak to legislation in the House, and certainly today, having presented the bill, it is a great honour and a pleasure to come in behind him and support the bill.

Canadians are rightly proud of their country. They are proud of its reputation for honesty and good government which has made us model for many democracies around the world.

However, this did not just happen by itself. Rather, it was the result of hard work and self-sacrifice of ordinary Canadians who educated themselves about the issues of the day. They became involved and they made a difference.

Canadians today are no different. They too want to get involved. They want to make a difference but to do this they need information on how the system works.

One area where Canadians do not have all the information they need, involves the funding of political activity. In the Canada Election study of 2000, it was reported that 94.2% of Canadians felt that they had the right to know how political participants financed their election campaigns. And they do.

In polling results released last summer, close to 80% of respondents were in favour of increased disclosure measures. This fact was abundantly clear when the Leader of the Government in the House consulted experts, provincial leaders and ordinary Canadians on how we could improve our current system.

Time and time again they said that Canadians did not have enough information on how political activity was financed and that what they did know, they did not always like. Canadians have a perception that donations by corporations, unions and rich individuals sometimes give government undue influence in decision-making processes.

This of course is mistaken. However, as we know, perceptions matter, especially in politics, and we must do everything in our power to ensure that all Canadians have complete confidence in our democratic process.

Probably the best way to counteract such misconceptions would be to give Canadians the fullest possible information on where donations come from, who gets them and how the money is spent. That would mean better disclosure and would require all the players to divulge their finances.

The recommendations from Lortie and the Chief Electoral Officer are significant. As I mentioned, in the development of the bill, the government consulted with experts and stakeholders. It also reviewed past studies of the electoral system, including the recommendations of the Lortie commission and the Chief Electoral Officer.

The Lortie commission came out with a series of recommendations on electoral issues in 1991, including on the issue of disclosure. As stated in the Lortie commission report:

Full disclosure of information on financial contributions and expenditures is an integral component of an electoral system that inspires public confidence. Essential to enhancing the integrity of the political system are the principles of transparency and public accountability. Full and timely disclosure requirements help remove suspicion about the financial activities of candidates and parties by opening the process to public scrutiny.

In that regard, the Lortie commission recommended extending disclosure requirements to electoral district associations, leadership contestants and nomination contestants.

The Chief Electoral Officer also studied the issue of disclosure extensively, including it in his recommendations following the 37th general election.

The CEO mentioned in his report that financial disclosure requirements had been part of the Canada Elections Act since its inception in 1874, and that “the history of the Canada Elections Act is a history of the growing realization of the importance of disclosure”. As he has been famously quoted as saying, “the absence of full disclosure requirements for political participants, other than parties and candidates, is the 'black hole' of political financing”.

As such, in his last report he recommended the extension of disclosure requirements to electoral district association, nomination contestants and leadership contestants.

Many provincial jurisdictions have already acted to extend measures in ways similar to that proposed in the bill. For example, in my home province of Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec all have requirements for disclosure for electoral district associations.

The provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia have disclosure requirements for leadership contestants. Both the United States and Britain have extensive disclosure requirements for political participants.

At a conference last summer, attended by the chief electoral officers of several countries, all the CEOs agreed that disclosure was a key part of an effective political financing system which complements other important measures, such as contribution limits and public funding.

What does that tell us? Many studies have pointed to the importance of full disclosure. Canadians have made it very clear that disclosure is very important to them. Disclosure is widely viewed in the provinces and other countries as a key element of an effectively functioning political system. The bill reflects all this.

I will now review the key elements relating to disclosure. To begin with, the bill contains measures designed to open up the system, make it more transparent and remove the air of mystery that obscures some areas. This makes a lot of sense, for the system is, after all, honest and above board. Why not let the public see everything and judge for itself? At present, only candidates and political parties are required to disclose to the Chief Electoral Officer the sources and amounts of contributions received. This clearly does not go far enough since it misses a number of important players.

To address this, the bill would extend reporting obligations to all the political participants, including electoral district associations, leadership contestants and nomination contestants. All political participants would have to disclose all contributions, including the name and address of the person or organization making donations of more than $200. Electoral district associations would report contributions and expenses on an annual basis. They would also be allowed to issue tax receipts for contributions in between elections.

Upon registration with the Chief Electoral Officer, leadership contestants would have to disclose the amounts and sources of contributions received prior to the date of registration. In each of the four weeks immediately preceding leadership conventions, they would be required to submit information on amounts and sources of donations.

Finally, six months following the leadership contest, they would be required to submit information on all contributions received, as well as all expenses incurred to the chief electoral officer. Nomination contestants also would be required to report on finances and would have to disclose amounts and sources of contributions, as well as expenses incurred, four months following the nomination contest.

These measures, once passed into law, will go a long way toward enhancing public confidence in the way we fund political activity in Canada. They will reassure Canadians of the basic honesty of the system by giving them a better idea of what money is being contributed, who receives it and how it is being spent.

In addition, the bill would fundamentally improve the way we fund political activity at the national level, which would send a powerful message to Canadians and the world that our political and governmental systems are based on the highest possible ethical standards and will continue to do so in the future.

Clearly, this is a situation where everyone wins. Canada's electoral law and political financing provisions are already the envy of the world. When these measures are put into full force, Canada's disclosure requirements will be unparalleled and Canadians will enjoy the highest standards of information about political participants.

For those reasons I will be supporting the bill and I encourage other members in the House to do likewise.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton on his new position. It is nice to see a fellow maritimer being elevated within his own party. I hope he does well in that.

The member talked about disclosure and transparency. One of the things that always amazes me about the Liberal Party is its ability to finance an election without any apparent local support. I know this has happened in Bras d'Or—Cape Breton. We hope the new legislation stops this from happening.

However under the bill contributions would be made to the Liberal Party of Canada, not to the local organizations. I know what would happen in the Liberal organization in New Brunswick Southwest. Most of the money would be given to the federal organization. The federal organization then would write a cheque and transfer all the money needed to run an election back to the local level. The obvious reasons are that many of these associations could not raise money at a local level.

I want the member to be very forthright and tell the House how much money he received from the federal party in that election, whether or not he feels that was right, and whether or not he feels the legislation would prohibit that from happening in the future?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague from Atlantic Canada for his congratulations. I feel a camaraderie and a certain sense of support because we face similar situations in Atlantic Canada.

I will have to play dumb on this one. In my own campaign it is very natural. I can assure the hon. member that in preparation for a campaign, we had a financial committee in place which was responsible for the fundraising. I know much has been said about big trust funds and large bank accounts in some constituencies. I can certainly attest to the fact that there are none in the constituency of Bras d'Or—Cape Breton. We raise our money through chicken suppers and spaghetti dinners, one member at a time. It is certainly from the grassroots of the party.

As far as we go forward with moneys coming from the national party, the support we garnered in our constituency was from the grassroots people and small businesses that wanted to offer their support. From that we went forward.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too want to extend my congratulations to the member on his important appointment. He is a popular member in the House. I know that he will do a very good job and will always respect this place and certainly his constituents.

There is one issue that has been raised by a number of my constituents. It was addressed by the Prime Minister in his speech and the member also addressed it somewhat in his own speech. It has to do with shifting the cost of our political system from corporations to all taxpayers through our general tax system. It is a question we have to answer clearly and concisely. I know the Prime Minister said that to the extent that corporations are not going to be making these contributions, they have an opportunity to send them to charities or to put it to other community good. They have some options here, but it also makes sure that there is some equity.

I would like to give the member an opportunity to address the very fundamental question about rationalizing the shifting of the burden from corporations to taxpayers as a whole and although that is a shift of who pays the toll as it were, how that relates to the objective the bill is trying to achieve.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Madam Speaker, that is the essence of the bill. There is a perception and we are looking at addressing the perception. We can best allay any cynicism within the financing process if that process is clear, transparent and accountable. That is what Canadians want and demand. We have heard it time and time again.

Sometimes we are our own worst enemies in casting aspersions back and forth in the House. We are guilty of it on this side as well. Throughout the Kyoto debate we were tough on taking the position that some parties might be at the mercy of certain corporate sectors.

Many Canadians want to take part in the process. We live in a great country, all of us know that. Canadians hold the virtues of democracy very high and are willing to pay a price for that. The initial response we have received around the country is that this is a positive piece of legislation. We see that Canadians want to step up and be part of that process. Through clear, open and accountable policies and a transparent process they will have that opportunity.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, do the Liberal government, the member himself, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and the Progressive Conservatives never get tired of taking the taxpayers' hard-earned money away from them and spending it foolishly?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not think this is about taking the taxpayers' money and spending it foolishly.

The bill is trying to build some integrity back into the process. It is about transparency and accountability. Yes, there is a small price to pay for the taxpayers of Canada, but I think it is a very small price to pay. If one looks at the figures of what it now costs Canadians through corporate donations and tax relief and what it will cost as we go forward with a revamped system through the bill that we are debating today, the difference in what it costs the people of Canada is very minimal. It is marginal.

If we ensure there is that transparency and accountability and if it builds integrity back into the system, then I think Canadians are willing to pay that price. That is what we have been told. In going door to door or listening to talk shows, that cynicism of corporate Canada pulling the levers of government is very obvious and apparent.

That is what the legislation is all about. It is why I will be supporting the legislation.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Madam Speaker, this legislation which I support in principle should not be seen as imposing a burden on taxpayers. The democracy we have in Canada is to be cherished and if it is worth having, it is worth paying for. I am sure most taxpayers would agree.

As a result of this legislation, we in the Liberal Party will no longer have to share our rebates with headquarters. Some of the money we will get will be from corporations at the local level and that money cannot be shared with the party because it will be barred by the legislation.

Another concern that I want to place on the record has to do with the provision to provide rebates with respect to expenditures on polling, whether it is at the local level or the national level. I feel somewhat squeamish about that. I think we spend enough money at the local level. If we allow for rebates, 50% on polling expenditures, that is an inducement to spend more money and I do not think that is necessary. Maybe the parliamentary secretary would like to respond to that.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Madam Speaker, in today's society and in today's electoral environment, polling is a tool used by most parties and by most candidates. If we are looking at a particular issue, polling is necessary. It is another way of gaining information as to the desires of specific groups or of all Canadians and knowing what is important to them.

The bill will be going to committee. The essence of the bill will not be compromised; we would not want to do that. These are aspects of the bill that can be debated. I encourage my colleague to bring forward his recommendations at the committee level.