Debates of Feb. 12th, 2003

Canada Elections Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I know it is not the hon. member's usual way of doing things, of heckling. I see him smiling. I do not know if he is serious or not. However it can be very annoying for the main speaker when he is interrupted or bothered. Therefore I am asking the member to refrain from doing so. He will have plenty of time to ask a question or make a comment once the member who is speaking now has finished.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would just point out that there is nothing the least bit out of order in heckling that does not disrupt the House, particularly when it is in response to a rhetorical question. I think that is the standard that we--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis was obviously upset at being heckled. As you know, he is not the type to heckle either. Therefore, please show respect for one another. There is plenty of time during questions or comments for members to give their views to the House.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rejoice that nominations for new candidates would now be part of this new process. I rejoice that leadership contests would be part of it as well. If we were to seek a totally open, democratic and transparent society, and political system, then all these nomination meetings and leadership contests would be an essential part of the total system. The people who take part in them should also be accountable.

I hope that members will not see this bill as a partisan initiative. I heard during the question and answer session the member for Prince George—Peace River say that it was a rehash of so-called scandals, money lost here, millions lost there, and ministers who came and went. What has this to do with it?

Are we here to rehash different issues that have been raised time and again in question period and previous debates? Or, instead, should we, as members who want parliamentary reform, who talk about parliamentary reform every day, rise above and beyond, and decide that this bill may have its flaws and weaknesses, and this we concede, but that surely it is a step forward for a more transparent political system and that it should be given a chance to be debated fairly?

We may disagree with one section or part of it, or many parts of it, but let us keep the debate on the essence of the bill itself, not use it as an excuse to bring up all kinds of ancillary issues, so-called scandals and so forth, that demean the debate.

I would suggest that we give this bill a chance to go forward to committee. If there are weaknesses, and I believe there are some in this bill that need to be examined, then the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will have all the time necessary to look at it in depth, to change what is weak, and to strengthen what needs to be improved.

I think this is a huge step forward and I welcome it. I wish to thank the Prime Minister and I congratulate him for the courage to bring it forward.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous regard for the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. However, I want to correct a misapprehension that he expressed in his remarks. He spent some time suggesting that the official opposition's view was that some parties should licitly receive public financing while others should not, based on what he described as some arbitrary criteria which would be imposed.

I want to be absolutely clear that his comment is not the position of the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition. I have never heard any member of my party, publicly or privately in the House or outside the House, suggest anything remotely of that nature.

The member for LaSalle—Émard, the former finance minister, was apparently quoted last week in the media as saying that Canadians would not want to finance the Bloc Québécois. I have not heard a similar remark from members of my party. The position that is held by, and articulated by--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I know my colleagues in the Bloc are looking for another humiliation, but they will not find one here.

The position of our party is based on a liberal democracy, an early foundational principle of liberalism as expressed by Thomas Jefferson in the preamble to the Virginia statute on religious freedom. He said:

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical

The idea is that it is problematic in a pluralistic democracy to compel somebody through the coercive power of the state to finance views which he finds abhorrent. That is the position that we take, that we do not find it pleasant to compel members of the New Democratic Party to finance the propagation of our views.

However, no one in our party would suggest that we should be selective about which parties receive public support. We believe that, in principle, no parties should receive public support and that the free market of ideas should work when it comes to financial support for political parties.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with due respect to my colleague for whom I have much esteem, I would ask him to look at the blues today. He will see that his colleague for Prince George—Peace River clearly said that one of the reasons why he felt that contributions by the state were unacceptable to him was that they would go to finance the Bloc Québécois which has an ideology of breaking up Canada.

I will say this very frankly to my colleague, if the member for LaSalle—Émard were to say the same thing I would have to disagree with him. This is what democratic thought is about. We do not accept things we do not agree with. However, I clearly heard it and this is why I raised the issue. It goes fundamentally to the debate. I happen to agree with what my previous colleague just said, that democratic life should not discriminate or select.

This is why I raised the issue. I think we should put this away. We should agree to tolerate people that disagree with us.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot listen to the comment made by the member opposite regarding statements made by the member for LaSalle—Émard without correcting the record.

Clearly in the interview in question—which, incidentally has been made public, including subsequent interviews that were given to respond to this interview—an example of a political party was given in comparison to another, which would or would not receive support.

I categorically reject all allegations by the Alliance member opposite. I reject the allegation attributing motives that are not true to someone who is unable to respond directly to them. Like the members for Lac-Saint-Louis and LaSalle—Émard, I believe that democracy speaks and that a party that is elected to this House has the same rights as any other political party.

That is my philosophy, that is his philosophy and that is the philosophy of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, and I will not allow the comments made by my colleague from LaSalle—Émard to be misrepresented.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question, but I would be very happy to respond to my colleague.

I think that I made myself perfectly clear. I thank the member for the correction that he made regarding comments made by the member for LaSalle—Émard.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague across the floor for whom I have a great deal of respect, one of the criticisms of the legislation is that it does not make provisions for a new party that may be developing and coming on the scene.

I wonder if my friend, with all the years of experience that he has had, has any comments or suggestions on how the bill might be improved to deal with that type of a situation?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I go back to the Quebec experience. A new party came on the scene, such as the ADQ, which is now riding very high in the polls. It is in fact almost as high as the other established parties. It came on the scene with just one member. It has been financed out of state funds to the same degree as the other parties. Today it has been enabled to function as a fully fledged party.

We should look at this carefully in committee. Right now the basis of funding existing parties is through previous electoral results. We should look at the whole issue of new parties. Certainly fairness will demand that we do this. The law would have to make this clear, that if a new bona fide party comes on the scene it would have to receive fair treatment and a treatment that would enable it to evolve and thrive just the same as the ADQ in Quebec has done in a few short years.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, democracy is not just marking an X on the ballot paper every four or five years. It is much more than that.

I think free votes in the House, free expression, and free debate are all components. However, during any election there should be an equal and fair opportunity for any candidate or political party during the election.

The last time we debated the Canada Elections Act in the House, the government tried to abuse its majority in a way by putting components in the bill which would favour the majority. Bill C-24, which we are debating, would give the majority party a tremendous advantage in the future. For example, the allocation of funds would be in proportion to the votes or in proportion to the number of seats it has, so if that always continues, smaller fringe parties or fringe candidates would not have the opportunity to raise enough money in comparison.

How would the member respond to the fact that this bill is not favouring his party more than any other political party, smaller candidate or smaller party in forthcoming elections?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that in a recent historical experience I recall the Progressive Conservative Party going from 208 seats to 2. So, results come and go; majority parties become minority parties. At the same time he has made a point that needs to be examined.

We must ensure that the distribution of state funds is fair. Whatever the members in committee, after reviewing all these questions with objectivity, recommend as a fair formula, that is what should be adopted. Maybe it is not the formula that is in the bill now. Maybe it needs to be improved, but I do not think we should say that because the majority party has so many seats today it is entrenched in time.

Today it has 175 seats, tomorrow it could have 50. This has been the history of political parties on a consistent basis. However, I agree with my colleague. We must give deep thought to all these questions and review them closely in committee.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned earlier that there were two sources of donations to parties: corporation and union dues, and taxpayers.

Our party would like to offer a third alternative, which is individual donations. Why is his party incapable of raising funds from donations from individuals. In our party the majority of donations we receive are from individuals.

That seems to be the forgotten part of the legislation that we could restrict corporate donations, but then parties could turn to individuals and have the individuals, who believe in the party, support them rather than turning to taxpayers. We saw this afternoon the emotion that comes out as soon as people start talking about having to support parties they do not believe in.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a contradiction there. I heard for instance that we do not want to turn to taxpayers. I heard the same member saying maybe taxpayers want one vote because we are going to have a $1.50 so-called head tax. At the same time he would want us to put all the load on individuals to finance the whole political and electoral system. That is a complete inconsistency and contradiction there.

Individuals can only do so much. Any government, when we think of our budget here of $175 billion a year, surely can afford $100 million to keep political parties in funds so that they can devote time to research and do the things that they should be doing, which is politics, rather than going out to raise funds all the time. This experience is working very well in Quebec. It is now working in Manitoba and I hope it works here as well.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

To begin my presentation on Bill C-24, I feel like saying, “Finally”. Finally, the government got it. Finally, there will be, at the federal level, legislation to clean up election financing.

Sometimes in the House, people do not like us bringing up things that are being done in Quebec, good things that work. I will point out that we have had political party financing legislation in Quebec since 1977. It was one of René Lévesque's greatest legacies.

I will also point out that those members of the Bloc Quebecois who were in this House when our party was founded started off as independents. In 1993, these members were elected to form the official opposition. Others joined the Bloc Quebecois in 1997 and in the 2000 election. More recently, we enjoyed two great victories in the ridings of Berthier—Montcalm and Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.

Since 1994, Bloc Quebecois members have been demanding that the federal government pass such legislation. The Bloc Quebecois readily supports the principle of the bill on political party financing. It welcomes these major steps forward in terms of financing by individuals and believes that, while imperfect, this bill will help democratize the financing of federal political parties.

I would like to review briefly a few important aspects of the bill. The limit for contributions by individuals is $10,000 per party per year. I will have an opportunity to comment on this. Members will recall that l said earlier that the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of the bill.

Corporations, trade unions and other associations may make contributions up to a maximum of $1,000 annually. Surveys will become admissible refundable election expenses, and the limit for election expenses will be raised accordingly.

This bill will come into force on January 1, 2004, or six months after royal assent, whichever is the later. I will have a comment to make on that.

Riding associations, nomination contestants and leadership contestants will have to register with Elections Canada and provide financial reports. Disclosure requirements are being extended for leadership races. Campaign expenses for nomination contestants will be set at 50% of the contestant's maximum allowable expenses during the previous election campaign in their riding.

The percentage of each party's election expenses that can be reimbursed will increase from 22.5% to 50%. The minimum percentage of votes for parties to be eligible for reimbursement of expenses, meaning the minimum percentage to be eligible for expenses, will decrease from 15% to 10%.

Political parties will be entitled to a quarterly allowance of 37.5¢ per valid vote. The maximum tax credit for donations to political parties will be set at $650 per year. The first $400 will be subject to a tax credit of 75%.

I was saying earlier that, in the early days of the Bloc Quebecois, following Quebec's example, it passed a provision in its founding statutes and manifesto that prohibited contributions from companies, even if federal legislation on political party financing permitted such contributions.

During our 2000 convention, this was democratically expressed by the party faithful, not by the party leadership or a financial institution, nor dictated by the big banks or by the oil and gas companies, as is the case for other political parties.

We know why the government does not seem to want to do more than pay lip service when it comes to the price of oil and gasoline, whether we are talking about gas at the pump or heating oil. This is quite simply because these big companies, these oil and gas companies are stuffing the pockets of the Liberal party. It is hard to bite the hand that feeds you. That is why the Minister of Industry's answers are so lacking in substance and why he is refusing to intervene.

Fortunately, the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge rose and said that there is in fact a competition problem when it comes to gas prices. That is another matter altogether; I will come back to the bill.

It is important to understand why people were against amending legislation on political party financing. On April 4, 5 and 6, the Bloc Quebecois will have another convention where supporters will be able to have their say, whether it be on the issue of ridings or on regional issues. However, during our convention in 2000, our supporters told us, “in order to put us on an equal footing with the other parties, we are asking you, as your supporters, in the mandate you received in the parliamentary wing, to change this rule”. That is why the party executive changed the Bloc Quebecois' financing rules.

Our supporters only resigned themselves to this after observing our inability to have federal political party financing rules changed. We do not have a time machine. If Bill C-24, as it now stands, had been introduced before our 2000 convention, our supporters would have seen that the government was starting to yield to reason and that the needed changes would indeed be implemented. That is why supporters asked that we change the party's constitution.

Since its creation, the Bloc Quebecois has called for changes to the Canada Elections Act so that only contributions from individuals be accepted to finance political parties.

In 1994, our colleague, the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, moved a motion to that effect, under private members' business. I will read the motion he moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation limiting solely to individuals the right to donate to a federal political party, and restricting such donations to a maximum of $5,000 a year.

I would remind members that this motion was defeated in the House and that the Liberal members, with a few exceptions, voted against it, including the member for LaSalle—Émard.

In closing, I would say, as we were saying at the beginning, that even though the bill is a step in the right direction it does contain some flaws, such as the $10,000 limit per party per year per individual. We feel that this is too much, when compared to the $3,000 limit set by the Quebec legislation.

The other point being that corporations, unions and other associations are allowed to make contributions up to a total of $1,000 each year. We believe that the bill could have prohibited this type of financing, as is the case in Quebec.

I would suggest that increased funding from the public is a necessary counterbalance and that this legislation should encourage the possibilities of increasing funding from the public so that political parties can remain independent and so that we do not have to owe our election to big corporations, but to average citizens who donated $2, $5, $10, or $20 and said “I would like you to represent me in Ottawa”. That is what we are asking for.

Although the Bloc Quebecois welcomes the new provisions of the bill as they relate to leadership races, we think it is a shame that everything possible was done so that the proposed provisions would not apply to the current Liberal leadership race, since the bill is scheduled to come into effect on January 1, 2004 at the earliest. It is clear that some people did not want the provisions of this bill to apply to the current Liberal leadership race.

As we said in the introduction, despite the loopholes that we have uncovered, the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of this bill on political party financing, but we will wait to make a definitive statement until we have seen the results from the work done in committee.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans for his comments. While he may have found his speech brief, it was certainly interesting and very enlightening as regards this bill.

I too agree with the principle of the bill, that is the democratization of the political party financing process. Earlier, a member opposite got himself all worked up when he claimed that the member for LaSalle—Émard had never said that Canadians would be surprised to see the Bloc Quebecois being funded with taxpayers' money.

Before putting my question to my colleague for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, I wish to point out to that hon. member that Quebeckers, who elected the Bloc Quebecois members, also pay federal taxes. Therefore, they have a fundamental right to be represented, if it is their wish, by Bloc Quebecois members, and the latter should enjoy the same benefits as the members of the other parties.

I want to ask my colleague whether it is true that the member for LaSalle—Émard made such comments.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, there was an exchange between the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis and some Canadian Alliance members. In any case, the blues exist and Hansard will be official tomorrow. We will then be able to confirm that the member for Prince George—Peace River did say these things in the House.

However, I would like to make a correction to the comments made by the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie. When the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie talks to us, he always poses as the holder of the truth. But I want to set the record straight regarding the comments that he made.

I have with me the statement made by the member for LaSalle—Émard to the media, at the world economic forum in Davos, Switzerland. It is from an article published in the National Post , on January 25, 2003. I will read the quote in English. This is the member for LaSalle—Émard speaking to the media.

I agree that the system should be open and transparent. That's what this is about, [but] the questions that have to be answered are how does a new party start up [if you can't raise money from private sources]? Another question is how do Canadians feel about their taxes being used to fund the Bloc Quebecois?”

So, this comment was made to journalists at the world economic forum, in Davos, on January 25, 2003, by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the member and all of the Bloc members that I totally support their presence here in the House of Commons. They campaigned and either persuaded the electors to their way of thinking or their electors already thought a certain way and they expressed what their electors were thinking and said, “Send me to Ottawa and I will present your point of view”. I support their being here 100% if that is what happened.

However, with respect to this bill, the offensive part of it being that taxpayers, voters, are being asked to fund political parties with which they do not agree, I think it is a violation of a fundamental freedom. For example, in 1993 when I first became involved, many individuals gave voluntary donations to our campaign and I won. That was the money I used for campaigning. Had someone come to my door and asked if I would give a donation to the Progressive Conservative Party to help it, I would have respectfully declined. Similarly I would have declined had someone from the Liberals, the NDP or the Bloc asked. My own personal freedom says I am not going to donate my money to support that in which I do not believe. That is a fundamental freedom in this country.

I want to assure the member that if the rules apply equally to all of the parties, they have as much right to be here as I do, and certainly as much right as those spineless Liberals on the other side.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the member for Elk Island says that he totally supports our presence in the House of Commons, I would respectfully say to him that he has nothing to do with our presence. He does not have to support it or to oppose it.

We were elected by the people who decided to send us here to represent them. Even if I said that I did not support the presence of any of the members across the way, I am not the one voting in those ridings. Is the member doing us a favour by saying that he supports our presence? He has no say on that.

I would say to my colleague from Elk Island that the Canadian Alliance's position in this matter is rooted in hypocrisy because, under the existing rules, when a corporation or an individual is eligible for a tax credit because of a contribution that was made, that tax credit is funded by taxpayers.

I will conclude by saying to the member for Elk Island that my fellow Quebeckers do not agree with the fact that 24% of their federal taxes are used for Stornoway, among other things. That would be a good example.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am always pleased to rise to speak in this House, but today even more than usual, because this government bill is, in a way, almost a gift to us Quebeckers. It is truly an unexpected surprise.

Once recovered from that surprise, we are nevertheless obliged to admit that we agree with the spirit of this bill.

It bears a considerable resemblance to Bill 2, enacted by the Quebec National Assembly in 1977, which has had time to prove its worth. This bill limits contributions to $10,000, a point on which we are not fully in agreement. We in the Bloc feel that $5,000 is ample.

It also allows companies, corporations, unions or not for profit organizations to contribute $1,000. We understand that the intent here may be to remedy an abuse that has existed in the past, but at the same time, out of principle, we prefer the way the Quebec political party financing legislation bans any contribution by a corporation, organization or company.

In practice, if the figure of $1,000 were selected, it would be very difficulty to monitor. During an election campaign, for instance, a candidate for a given party could receive $900. Since some companies are located in two adjacent ridings, the candidate in the other riding could only receive $100.

What, however, is to prevent that same company—for example the Banque nationale or some other bank—from making another contribution in a far distant part of the region, the province or the country, to another candidate at the same time?

It is my impression, in this connection, that even a well-meaning candidate or election committee is not in a position to provide an immediate answer as to whether or not they can accept a contribution from a given company, without knowing where else it might have made a similar contribution.

That is the practical aspect. Because of this complication, and in order to be true to the principle, I feel it would be far wiser and far simpler and consistent,far more transparent as well, to ban contributions from companies, not for profit organizations, labour unions and others.

My hon. colleague from Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans responded to a Canadian Alliance member on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. I do not wish to repeat everything he said, but that is not all we should tell him. The member said he supported us. He must have meant to say tolerate, because I do not think that he supports us in the sense of making financial contributions to our party. Not that we would ask him to either.

We are grateful that he supports our presence, but as my colleague, the whip for the Bloc Quebecois indicated, there is no need for that. The people who elected us have spoken. But he was talking about rights. Can a woman be a little pregnant? That is always the example that is used. Either she is pregnant or she is not. If we have the right to exist or to be supported by him, the member should let us enjoy the same rights as other political parties. Otherwise, there is no right, and we are just being tolerated. A right is a right, which is different from being tolerated. This is another aspect.

I would like to give an example, because this issue of new parties in this House has been raised. In 1993, the Bloc Quebecois was not a recognized party, as it lacked the required number of members, in spite of the fact that it already had seven elected members before the 1993 election. There were resignations both from the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party, and our current leader got elected in Laurier—Sainte-Marie. Yet our party was not recognized and therefore did not benefit from tax credits until the elections were called, at which time it put up a minimum of 50 candidates.

I think it is wise to learn from experience here. We can always talk about the number of members necessary; that is another issue. We know that here, there have to be 12 members. But that is a whole other issue that we could look at in another debate.

I think we should applaud the idea, which apparently comes from the Prime Minister. In pondering his political legacy, he thought about this issue and remembered that 26 years ago this bill was the first bill adopted by the Parti Quebecois after it was elected, even if it was Bill 2, since the first bill was on language. He said “There is a good idea” and ran with it.

It took him a while, because he has had a long career that started even before 1977. One could say that he could have thought of this much sooner but—

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Better late than never.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

As my colleague from Jonquière says, better late than never.

However, in the current context where the Prime Minister is leaving, there is a leadership race in his own party and he is being observed and criticized from all sides, I think he did not dare make a certain move.

He made one by indicating that the bill would come into effect on January 1, 2004, which is after the Liberal party leadership race. I think the Prime Minister was forced to do this. He did not dare do more, perhaps for fear of seeming mean-spirited towards a certain candidate in the Liberal leadership race, the person who may be his successor.

I would like to do him a favour and tell my colleagues in all the parties that we should acknowledge that the Prime Minister, albeit a little late, had a good idea, that he introduced a good bill and that we agree with it.

However, he did not dare go that far. We all know the legislative process: the bill is sent to committee before receiving royal assent and so forth. Normally we could expect all this to be concluded at the end of June or during the summer. This bill could come into effect as early as this fall, but the Prime Minister did not have the courage for that.

I think that if it comes from another party such as the Bloc Quebecois—I have not had the time to consult my hon. colleagues on this matter; there are some around me—it might be a good idea to give some thought in committee, at the report stage or at third reading, to having the bill take effect when it receives royal assent, as with all other bills.

I think that this would be generally acceptable. There should not be a feeling that this is not in his party's interests. I think that, at the end of his political career, the Prime Minister had wanted to make a nice gesture. I would like to help him out by saying that it will not come from him but from someone else, an opposition member, seconded by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

I was listening earlier, and I must say that he made a very good speech today. It is obvious that he is a man of democratic principles. He was a member of the National Assembly of Quebec and saw the good side of this legislation, which, even if the Parti Quebecois was defeated, was retained by Premier Robert Bourassa during two mandates and is still in effect today.

To my knowledge, no political party in Quebec wants to change this, since the results have proven positive.

Let us go over these results. The Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec reported some interesting data. All in all, in 2001, the recognized political entities at the provincial level in Quebec received 58,082 contributions; 82% of them, that is 47,806 contributions, were of $200 or less. So, we are talking about small contributions.

The average amount of the contributions was $171. On average, the contributions of $200 or less were of $67; 8.6% of the contributions were over $400; 1.2% of the contributions were between $2,000 and $3,000. Therefore, I think that a $5,000 limit is quite reasonable.

What is great about legislation on political party financing is that it is based on transparency. The second goal is that members of the House of Commons, whatever their political stripes, will feel more independent—and I did not say indépendantistes—and will not be subjected to pressure coming from right and left. When 1,000 individuals contribute $5 each, you know that it is not the same as if one individual made a contribution over $5,000, for which he will expect meetings and favours. I think that members of this House would breathe easier and be able to work more freely.

We do not do it often, but I think we should give credit to the Prime Minister for bringing forward such a bill at the end of his political career.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. I want to ask him to deal with the specifics of the bill that are contrary to or that he feels would be an improvement over the present legislation that exists in Quebec. I know that he has made a couple of comments about the similarities of the bill with the legislation of Quebec and Manitoba.

I would like to hear him expand on just exactly what it is he is looking for in regard to improvements in the bill so that we might have some idea on how he feels that this particular legislation could be improved upon.