Debates of Feb. 12th, 2003

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 35 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 35

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Since 1996, what grants, contributions, contracts and/or loan guarantees made either through a crown corporation, department, and/or agency of the government did each of the following companies receive: Bombardier (and any of its subsidiaries), Power Corporation, and Milit-Air Inc., specifying the source and value of the grant, contribution, contract and/or loan guarantee, date made, reason(s) for providing the funding, and present status of the grant, contribution, and /or loan guarantee (whether repaid, partially repaid, or unpaid - including the value of the repayment--in the case of contracts please specify whether the contract is fulfilled, whether it was tendered and any reason for limiting the tender)?

Return tabled.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by 22 minutes.

The House resumed from February 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing), be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Canada Elections Act

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, specifically dealing with political financing. At the outset of my remarks this afternoon, I would like to say that never in a million years would I have thought that the Liberal government would discover the error of its ways, but here we are debating Bill C-24, which is at least an attempt on the part of the government to self-impose new rules to clean up its act.

The legislation would primarily do three things. Riding associations and leadership candidates would be included under the regulatory framework for registration and financial accounting under the Canada Elections Act. Allowable contributions to political parties, their riding associations and candidates would be more stringently limited. Corporations, unions and unincorporated organizations would be restricted to an annual donation limit of $1,000 a year to riding associations or individual candidates, while individuals would be allowed an annual limit of some $10,000 a year to a political party, riding association or individual candidate. Political parties would consequently be compensated for reduced corporate donations by overhauling financial rules and granting direct public financing.

After nine years of scandalous accusations and countless RCMP investigations, the Prime Minister expects that by tweaking the Canada Elections Act he can tell Canadians his scandal ridden government is a problem of the past. Canadians are very familiar with the ongoing troubles of the Liberal government. A number of ministers have been removed from their posts because of lucrative contracts being awarded to Liberal-friendly firms which have made liberal donations to their party.

In theory, eliminating corporate donations could possibly mitigate the problem, but it would not address the more serious problem of an ethically challenged Liberal government. For any major policy decision of a government, stakeholders should always be consulted to discuss any potential impacts. Corporations have always had an influence on government and they will continue to funnel money through their executive, board members or employees. The same obviously holds true for individual Canadians.

Stakeholders deserve to have a say on public policy matters affecting them. However, there comes a point when it no longer serves the public interest. When businesses need to make donations to a political party in order to be heard or to be considered for a government contract, it is indicative of a problem with the government, not the private sector. A responsible and an ethical government does not check a list of donors before deciding how much access they have to a minister of the crown.

I am reminded that a number of years ago there was a member in this place who got into quite a bit of hot water because he had actually refused to provide service to a constituent because he knew that the constituent had not voted for him in the previous election. I think that all members of Parliament from all parties at that time were appalled by that type of conduct.

The Liberal government, as I was saying, hit an all-time new low before the last election when the member for Scarborough Southwest refused to offer that assistance to a Canadian war veteran. The member's reasoning behind his decision was that because the veteran did not vote for him, he should not have to provide any assistance as a member of Parliament.

Quite rightly, this revelation shocked Canadians across the country, as it did members of Parliament from all parties. Even the most partisan politician recognizes that a constituent's political stripe has nothing to do with the services he or she is entitled to by his or her member of Parliament.

Yet if we outlaw large corporate donations from the realm of federal politics, would it fix the problem? That is the question we must ask. Eliminating financial donations would help, but what about other potential conflicts? We are not strangers to hearing about ministers staying at luxurious corporate chalets or ministers making policy decisions that affect their private interests.

We can pass laws and set restrictions to uphold the integrity of Parliament until we are blue in the face but it will do nothing if the government has no ethical standards to begin with.

During the 1993 election, the Liberal Party campaigned on upholding high ethical standards in order to restore integrity to the federal government. Of the many promises that were published in the Liberal red book, a whole chapter was dedicated to governing with integrity. That is what it was entitled.

I found the following interesting quote from the Liberal red book of 1993:

Yet after nine years of Conservative rule, cynicism about public institutions, governments, politicians and the political process, is at an all-time high. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored. The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable. There is evidence today of considerable dissatisfaction with government and a steady erosion of confidence in the people and institutions of the public sector. This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes: some have to do with the ethical behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political leadership.

Well, these words from the Liberal red book are probably truer today than they were back then. We have now sustained nine years with the Liberal government and I would argue that public cynicism of government is even now more widespread than it was in 1993.

The Prime Minister's misguided attempt at restoring public confidence in government will come at a heavy cost to taxpayers. With no corporate donations, all political parties would be compensated with direct public financing. At approximately $1.50 per vote, every political party would stand to gain from this arrangement. However, it raises several serious concerns.

Although contributions from individual Canadians would be allowed to continue, political parties could become a little too comfortable I would argue, with a regular paycheque from taxpayers. Under this scheme, there is potential for a broadened disconnect, and I would argue that the disconnect is too broad already between the electorate and the respective political affiliation.

It is well known that each political party attempts to garner support from a particular spectrum of society. The NDP, for example, looks for support from left leaning or more socialist supporters by representing their issues in Parliament. For those who agree and identify with that philosophy, many will make a financial contribution in support of those efforts. This holds true for every political party inside and outside the House of Commons.

As politicians for our respective political organizations, if we do not represent and act on issues important to Canadians, we suffer financially as a result. If we were to receive an annual paycheque from the government--from the taxpayers I would argue--some parties could potentially become complacent and not work as hard to gather the support they need from the Canadian people. Furthermore, if taxpayers were to foot the bill for every eligible political organization in the country, every Canadian would be forced to have their hard-earned dollars go toward a party that may not represent their personal views. We currently see this with mandatory union donations.

The New Democratic Party has a strong affiliation with important Canadian unions that make large financial contributions to that party. Individual union workers are required to pay union dues and indirectly fund a political party that they may not choose to support. Under Bill C-24, all Canadians would be required to financially support political parties that they do not support.

I wish no offence to the Bloc Québécois members of the House, but there is a great majority of constituents in my riding of Prince George—Peace River who do not want any of their money going to the Bloc. I am sorry, but not very many Canadians wish to support a political party whose sole motivation is to see the separation of Quebec from Canada. No one should be forced to financially support a political ideology which goes against their own, but we soon may have no choice.

Another point I would like to make is in regard to political financing of new political movements in Canada. An important aspect of Canadian democracy involves Canadians working together to create a voice for their concerns in Ottawa. We have seen that happen throughout our history, from the Social Credit Party which is fading into history to the Progressives which joined with the Conservatives to form the Progressive Conservative Party, to even the Canadian Alliance predecessor, the Reform Party of Canada.

All of these organizations were created to better represent Canadians' views on federal issues. The legislation before us today severely hinders the ability of new political parties to acquire the financing necessary to establish themselves. With no votes, a new party is ineligible for the government subsidy, making it very hard for new political movements to take shape.

A new innovation of the Liberal government involves the use of government funds for political purposes. Canadians have never before been witness to such widespread government advertising purporting to show the benefits of the Liberal Party policy. The Liberal government has realized that as an incumbent party it can use taxpayers' hard earned dollars to advance its own political agenda. During the recent parliamentary debate on the Kyoto protocol, Environment Canada used every advertising medium to convince Canadians it was doing the right thing by voting in favour of ratifying the Kyoto protocol.

Recent inquiries made into the cost of the Liberals' advertising campaign came up with a total of $9.7 million, almost $10 million, not used to inform Canadians about government services or to provide better health care to Canadians, but wasted on promoting the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada, I would argue.

What are we dealing with here? The fact is that Bill C-24, I would argue, guarantees a tremendous advantage to the incumbent government, no matter which party that might be.

The idea is that we will have roughly $1.50 for every Canadian who turns out at the polls to vote on election day, which will then go to political parties based upon the party for which they vote. I would call Bill C-24 a new Liberal head tax. That is what we are talking about. Every Canadian voter who turns out to vote will be taxed $1.50. That tax will go to support a political party and, as I have said, a political party that he or she may not wish to support, whether it is the Bloc or the Canadian Alliance. Certainly a lot of people show up at the polls and do not vote for the Canadian Alliance, why, I have no idea, and I am sure they do not want to see their money support the Canadian Alliance. That is the reality.

I say shame on the government and shame on the Prime Minister for trying to bring in, as part of his so-called legacy, this new Liberal head tax.

Furthermore, Canada is currently experiencing the highest level of voter apathy since Confederation. Voter turnouts have been steadily dropping in the last three elections. I have done some research on this. During the 36 general elections since 1867 and up to the 2000 election, an average of approximately 73% of registered electors voted. Turnout has ranged from a low of 62.9% at the time of the June 1896 election to a high of 79% in three successive general elections between 1958 and 1963. More recently in our history it was averaging about 75%, until 1993, and it has been steadily dropping since then. In the November 2000 election it even beat the all time low. About 61% of Canadians bothered to turn out to vote.

I would suggest that the new Liberal head tax of $1.50 will provide yet another deterrent or disincentive for Canadians to go out to vote. They will say they do not really know why they want to vote anyway. By their action of voting, $1.50 will be taken in taxes to go to some political party. It might go to the political party beside which they marked their X, but it might not. The $1.50 will just go to a political party.

I think there are enough reasons for Canadians to be apathetic and to be cynical about our political process without putting a $1.50 head tax on everyone who votes. It will provide quite a discouragement.

I want to refer briefly to the remarks made by the Prime Minister only yesterday when he introduced Bill C-24. He gave quite a long speech, something that he does not normally do in this place. It was noted that for him to speak to it in the Chamber obviously this is something that he feels quite strongly about.

Specifically, in the latter part of his remarks he said, “Public skepticism is increasing...A lot of people have lost faith in our democratic institutions”. Further on, he said, “This legislation will pass...”.

By tying those three remarks together, we can see a bit of the problem. There was the Prime Minister standing up on the first day of debate on a piece of legislation and saying unequivocally that this legislation, Bill C-24, will pass. He referred to public skepticism increasing in our country. Why is that? I would suggest that he need only look at his own remarks. When he as Prime Minister states on the very first day of debate that this legislation is going to pass, it makes a farce out of democracy.

Why are Canadians staying home? Why are Canadians checking out of the democratic process, not taking out memberships in political parties and not starting new political movements? Because they do not believe that this is democracy. They do not believe that Parliament operates democratically, because whatever one man says goes. If he decides that this bill will pass it will pass, because he has the power to keep his backbenchers, his majority, in line, through either threats or inducements. He has the power to ensure that the legislation passes.

That is why we continually see amendments defeated after the hard work on the part of all members, even the Liberal backbenchers, and any members of the four opposition parties who work hard to try to critique legislation, improve it and bring forward amendments. The minister of the particular department that is sponsoring the bill then just decides that he is going to have all his colleagues stand up, so he goes to the Prime Minister and the whip of the party and the government defeats the amendments. It does not matter whether they are good or bad; it is just that the amendments are not the government's, not the department's, not the minister's, so the government defeats them.

That is why Canadians are checking out of the political process in Canada. That is why Canadians feel they are disenfranchised.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that nine years of Liberal political scandals and repeated allegations of influence peddling and conflict of interest have taken their toll as well. Generous donors to the Liberal Party coffers are often found at the centre of many government spending controversies, such as Shawinigate and the RCMP investigation of the public works sponsorship program, the now infamous advertising programs.

The outright ban of corporate donations to federal political parties will appear to some to clean up the mess the Liberal government is in right now, but it will not fix the problem. With no corporate or union donations, political organizations would need some sort of compensation. But what form it should take is up for debate. I suggest that it should be up for debate, that we should not have the Prime Minister stand up and say this will pass.

Perhaps a funding system linked to financial donations would be more appropriate. Either way, if we are to proceed with any public funding model we need to ensure that the Canadian taxpayers, who ultimately will foot the bill, are ultimately protected and, more important, consulted.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Before we go to questions or comments it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, Health; the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas, Health; the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester, Persons with Disabilities.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Prince George--Peace River for his speech.

I want to highlight something that stands out in my mind. One of the first things that happened when I was a new member here in 1997 was a situation where a Liberal fundraiser, whose name I believe was Pierre Corbeil, was charged and then convicted of influence peddling. Somehow this individual got hold of lists of companies in Quebec that were receiving government grants. He was shaking them down for a contribution to the Liberal Party of Canada of $10,000 each. If they did not come up with the cash, surprise, surprise, they would not get the government grant for whichever particular area that happened to be.

In the last election in the year 2000 while the Shawinigate controversy was bubbling away, there was also this revelation that government grants in the Province of Quebec were being run through this parallel process of people within the Quebec Liberal Party as to who was going to get government grants. This was absolutely unbelievable.

Now the Prime Minister, on his way out the door, is trying to trumpet this piece of legislation as a way to clean up financing when really that is not what it would do at all. It would create all kinds of other difficulties, many of which were alluded to by my colleague.

I want to focus my question on one comment my colleague made, that being the cynicism that is created when $1.50 per vote goes to each political party every single year based on its performance in the last election and how that disconnect would widen because of it.

Would the hon. member elaborate on that for me and give me his thoughts on how he sees the disconnect growing because of that movement in the bill?

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague alluded to a number of problems that preceded the bill, and dealing with scandals.

As I said at the outset of my remarks, the government came into power in 1993 at least partly running on the platform of cleaning up the image and restoring some integrity to government. It was a powerful selling point when the Liberals were door-knocking and campaigning in 1993.

Speaking from experience, I was a candidate in 1988 and again in 1993, and was successful in 1993. I know, from door-knocking in Prince George--Peace River, that constituents were very upset with the Mulroney government at that time. I would argue that government had been scandal ridden and had a lot of problems when it came to influence peddling. A lot of ministers had resigned.

When the Liberals came along and the current Prime Minister ran for the job of prime minister in 1992-93, they made these promises that they would clean up Parliament and government and that they would restore the people's trust, that sacred trust that must exist in a democratic country between the people and their government. It was a powerful incentive for people to vote Liberal in 1993.

As my colleague and I have alluded to, unfortunately the scandals have continued. I guess it is open to argument whether this government is better or worse than the one which preceded it. I would argue that they are both of a similar duration; nine years of the Mulroney Conservatives and nine years now of the current Prime Minister's Liberal government. We would have to tabulate how many scandals there have been, how many ministers have resigned, how many ministers should have resigned, how many fairly substantial allegations, whether proven in the end or not of influence peddling and that type of immoral or unethical activity, have been charged against both governments and do a balance sheet to compare them.

However I do know, and I think I speak for most if not all members in the House, there is a growing cynicism on the part of Canadian voters and it is reflected in those who increasingly do not bother to show up at the polls to vote. That is dangerous. In a small way I commend the Prime Minister for bringing forward Bill C-24 and for at least showing some willingness to begin to address that. However Bill C-24 will not do the job.

Restricting corporate donations to $1,000 and replacing it with public money based upon a $1.50 Liberal head tax for every Canadian who shows up at the polls to vote, will only further discourage people to vote. Corporations simply will find some other way to support the political parties or the candidates of their choices. The limit in Bill C-24 is $10,000 if the donation comes from an individual. The corporation can turn over sufficient money to its board of directors, its executive, its CEO and his or her family, or the employees or whatever. There are other ways.

We have seen that in the United States. The Americans have some very tough laws dealing with political financing but it does not prevent it from happening. They just become a little more imaginative in how they funnel the money.

The bill does not address the problem of an unethical government. That is what I was trying to get at with my speech. We saw that in the Shawinigate scandal. We saw that a number of times in Parliament when different scandals were revealed either in question period or during debate. Ministers basically set their standard of behaviour according to the Prime Minister's standard of behaviour. When he intervened, for example, with the Business Development Bank on behalf of a constituent at a time, when I think most Canadians would be seriously concerned about a conflict in a situation like that, he argued in this place that he was just doing his job as a member of Parliament. That is how he viewed it.

That is where we have the problem. When a Prime Minister thinks that way, pretty soon all his ministers think like that and then everyone thinks like that. What does the public do? The public says if that is where the bar is, everyone will fall over it.

As I said, there is a real problem with voter apathy in Canada and it is incumbent upon all politicians of all political stripes to begin to address it and be serious about restoring the trust that has been broken between the Canadian public and their politicians and Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the cynicism in the Canadian electorate. I thought it was interesting that he pointed out that if people actually wanted to save tax money, they could do that by not voting. That is one of the strange byproducts of a bill that has been poorly thought out, that if people do not want to contribute their $1.50, they stay home and are not counted in the head tax.

Presently if parties raise their own money, and some of it comes back to them in terms of rebates, or tax credits or those kinds of things, people are free to support the party they choose. We appreciate that.

The new system will have taxpayers paying for this entire system. I want my colleague to comment on two things. First, I do not think I have seen an issue that has stirred people so much since the gun registry issue came up in my riding. Would he comment on that? Second, does he think there is any connection with the fact that the other parties are carrying huge debts, have fallen in behind and are supporting this bill?

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously cannot do these two questions justice in the time provided.

In reply to the second question, I believe all political parties, with the exception of the Canadian Alliance, are currently carrying some debt. I think that even a cursory examination of the funding that will flow to political parties when Bill C-24 passes, since the Prime Minister says it will pass, will increase their finances and help them deal with their debt. That may or may not be part of their motive in supporting the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, all those of us who are staunch believers in parliamentary reform and have fought for it, for an indepth reform, are delighted that this bill will bring in one crucial component of that reform.

The issue of political party financing is at the very core of any parliamentary reform. There can be no true parliamentary reform, in fact, without it.

Any change to the financing of political parties is difficult. It requires changes to mentalities, traditions and habits.

I have had the experience of being a Quebec MNA. I must congratulate the government prior to mine, that is the Parti Québécois of René Lévesque, for its thorough reform of the financing of political parties in Quebec. There had been a long history of corruption and laxity, and the change of mentality that ensued is something to be proud of. The public has come to accept the fact that corporations, labour unions and institutions have no place in the financing of political parties and that, on the contrary, individuals play the key role. The ordinary citizen is the one with pride of place.

It has not been my experience that changing things and going from corporations to individuals has decreased the latter's participation. On the contrary, financing of political parties by individuals has brought in new supporters because more people were required to raise funds.

In addition, the fact that the legislation in Quebec made it possible to get additional funding directly to the political parties allowed the parties to worry less about funding and focus more on policy, research and groundwork with the voters. In fact, the party I belonged to had hundreds of thousands of members. It was always a lively and dynamic membership. There was no link between the legislation and decreased support in the party. On the contrary, it stimulated support within the party.

Today, I would say in all objectivity that no one in Quebec would want to go back to the previous legislation. I think this legislation is accepted by all political parties, regardless of their goals and ideologies, and I am glad of it.

What we are trying to do here is to all but ban contributions from corporations and unions and focus on the individual. Some have said that the $10,000 ceiling is too high. Compared to the $3,000 ceiling in Quebec, where the legislation dates back to 1977, and taking inflation into account, perhaps $10,000 is not too much. If it is too much, it will be up to the House committee to look at it further, to check with other parties if this is the limit we need, or whether the limit should be lower. At that time, it could be adjusted accordingly when the committee reviews the bill.

I rejoice that the government has decided to help finance political parties by increasing election expenses from 22.5% to 50%. Admittedly, the 50% is based on election expenses, and maybe this will have to be reviewed by the committee as to whether a ceiling should be placed so as not to encourage political parties to spend taxpayer money needlessly knowing that the refund will be based on the expenses they undergo.

I would like to address the question raised by my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance as to whether the state should finance electoral expenses and political parties versus corporations and unions.

I have always been a strong believer that it is a small expense for the state. I believe the director of elections has said that to fully finance political parties would cost about $104 million overall. One hundred and four million dollars to a state the size of Canada is a very small price to pay for electoral independence.

If we were to rely strictly on corporations, unions and institutions to finance political parties there would be a price to pay. To say that this money comes completely outside of the state treasury is a total exaggeration. These same corporations receive tax rebates, tax incentives and tax reductions for all the money they give. In effect, the state is involved anyway. The question is: at what level should it be involved?

I believe that if it costs $100 million more or less for a government the size of the Government of Canada to finance political parties and to put electoral independence in place in a democratic system, that is a very small price to pay.

My colleagues from the Canadian Alliance spoke about $1.50 per elector as being a new Liberal head tax. I found it amusing to hear them say that electors will not vote to avoid paying the $1.50 Liberal head tax. What a joke. I have far greater faith in my electors and the citizens of Canada. I believe they would do their electoral duty regardless of $1.50. Surely, the electorate of Canada would not be demeaned to the extent of saying that they will not vote because of a matter of a $1.50 so-called head tax.

The reason there is dejection in the electorate, not only in Canada but in Europe, in the United States to a far greater degree, in Japan and elsewhere, goes far deeper than the so-called $1.50 head tax or any superficial reason.

The fact is that Parliament, whether it be this one or another one, whether it is this system of government or another system of government, has become more estranged from the grassroots. It is certainly our fault as it is the fault of the French parliament, the German parliament or the U.S. congress. The cynicism of people in parliamentary systems and other government systems is not due to the type of political financing. On the contrary, the cleaner and more independent it is the more people will rejoice.

The causes are far more fundamental. They go back to the fact that we have isolated ourselves over the years from the daily lives of people. They do not find themselves in our debates, in the way we do things or in how we make our decisions. They increasingly want us to adopt free votes in the House of Commons. They want us to reform our systems. They want parliamentarians to be able to produce legislation freely. They want basic parliamentary reforms which go to the heart of democratic and societal openness. As we give them those things they will return to elections and to their political process.

I do not have any problems finding members for my party in my riding. I have a thriving association and people take part very readily and strongly in the political process.

Now that we have political reform through changing our financing of political parties, which is far more democratic, open and transparent, I think, contrary to what the Canadian Alliance was saying, people will accept this very readily and welcome it very strongly.

I heard the Canadian Alliance also say, as another item of objection to the bill, that it did not want the Government of Canada to finance political parties because that would be financing the Bloc Quebecois, a party that should not be financed because it is against the existence of Canada.

I disagree fundamentally with the objectives of the Bloc Quebecois, as it disagrees with me, but that is part of the democratic process. However the Canadian Alliance should know that individuals who give to political parties receive tax rebates. Corporations that give to political parties receive tax rebates. Does the Canadian Alliance believe that we should say that federalist parties should receive tax rebates for their donations but the Bloc Quebecois should not be allowed tax rebates?

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

No, we never said that.

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

No, you never said but the money--

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

Come on.

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

Would you please allow me to speak and then you can stand up and ask me a question. I listened to you people very politely and I ask for the same courtesy.

The point made by the Alliance was that the Government of Canada should not give any money to political parties because, in doing so, we would include the Bloc Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois has a different agenda from us.

If we start to discriminate on the basis of the ideology of a particular party, where do we start and where do we stop? Tomorrow there could be a Communist party here and then the Canadian Alliance would say that it does not want to finance communist parties. Who are we to decide what people want?

If the people of Quebec, in their given democratic rights, agree to vote for Bloc Quebecois members, I might disagree fundamentally with the ideology that the Bloc Quebecois proposes, but at the same time I respect the democratic right of all Canadians to finance and back any political party legally constituted, of their choice, regardless of what it is. And to say, whether it is the Canadian Alliance or another,“holier than thou, I am pure, you are impure so I do not give to you”, is fundamentally wrong and undemocratic.

I guess I have hit a nerve on that side because I hear them shouting. They will not agree because they want to be selective. They are holy and the others are less holy. Who decides this in a society that is open, transparent and democratic?

I am glad that this proposed law will constitute registries for electoral districts or ridings so that associations will be accountable to the system and that is also democratic, transparent, open and right.

I am also glad that nominations involving candidates for eventual election will fall under the aegis of the law so that it will give people who do not have the means to spend unlimited funds, as has sometimes been the case, a chance to access the nomination process. This would include women who do not have a chance to perhaps go to work.

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

That is demeaning to women. They can raise more money than you can.

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

Mr. Speaker, would you ask that kind gentleman to keep quiet for a little while and listen to his party. He will have a chance to ask me questions. He should stop interrupting all the time. I know he has all the answers. If he has the answers he will have time to speak for himself. I would like to speak for myself and ask him to be polite and listen.