Debates of Feb. 17th, 2003

Canada Elections Act

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course the legislation proposes a formula by which the public monies would be allocated to parties based on their results in the last election. I have not studied that in detail because my problems are more fundamental than that. However there would have to be some mechanism.

The member for Elk Island makes an important point. The Liberal Party, the Alliance Party, the NDP, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Bloc have fundraising dinners where the leader and others are featured and profiled. People and companies attend and pay so much a plate for dinner. This involves a political process. They are able to meet members of Parliament, party officials, volunteers and staff in ministers' offices. They are able to interconnect and talk about issues. Do we really believe that those people who attend those dinners influence the public policy process? I think it is naive to think that is the case.

We must look at the fact that most corporations donate to all political parties. It is true that they might donate more to the party in power but they donate to all major parties.

I am not sure what the problem is that we are trying to fix. Maybe we could introduce limits. Some of these amounts do become quite large. It is hard to predicate exactly what they do in terms of the thinking processes.

However, to put an outright limit, which is what is proposed in the bill, at $1,000 is wrongfooted. In fact, my riding is very industrial. I have a fundraiser and it is supported for $500 by industry. Do people really think that will suddenly change my mind on important matters of public policy in Canada and debate in the House of Commons? I am sorry but if companies really believe that, then they are picking the wrong candidate. I think that probably goes for everybody in the House.

I do not know what else to say, other than that I agree with the member opposite.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was reading some figures today showing that the Alliance Party would receive $4.92 million under this structure, which would be a net gain for it in terms of the corporate donations it gets of just over $4 million. It would be a substantial amount for that party.

We have heard some of the Alliance's very clear opposition, ideologically, philosophically and in principle, to the legislation. Would the member perhaps support an amendment that would provide that a political party, based on principle, ideology and philosophy, could reject receiving funds so that the Alliance would not be burdened with having to accept the $4.92 million that it would receive under this formula?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if that amendment were put forward it probably would be defeated at committee.

The reality is that all parties need political financing. We could take the proposition to the next step and say that if we were to reduce political expenses generally, then perhaps we would not need to look to the taxpayer to subsidize some of these expenses. Some of that might make sense.

We have these huge campaigns where a lot of money is spent. I think there is a fine balance between communicating with Canadians so they understand fully the different platforms and the different positions being proposed by different political parties, and a lot of the hoopla where parties all have to do the same type of expenditure just to keep up with the Jones. If they do not do it they will be at a disadvantage.

I think that is a question that could be discussed if the government proceeds with this type of legislation. Even if it were to increase the limits, which I am not sure it will do, there would still be some shortfall that would need to be either financed or some cutting back on--

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret that time has lapsed and we must resume debate.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to build on what my colleague from Windsor said, which was the fact that the Alliance Party would accrue quite a bit of money in this new regime. I want to make one point very clear.

Given the fact that we have always had public contribution by virtue of the tax credit on $100, $200 and $300 donations that essentially means that the Alliance Party is prepared to take public funds on the basis of its ability to raise money but not on its ability to get votes. That is very revealing.

I do support Bill C-24. One of the elements that has not been discussed too much is the accounting, the reporting around nominations, leaderships and so on. These things are long overdue and I am pleased we will be raising the bar in terms of keeping Canadians abreast of what is happening and where party finances come from and where they go.

I have always supported some kind of limit on corporations, including bans, because I do believe, although I do not think there is any truth in it, that Canadians link donations with work for the government and so on. In my case, if someone in my constituency were to give me a $3,000 donation and that person received a contract at CFB Gagetown it would all be honest and legitimate. Donations are encouraged by the system and contracts are heavily scrutinized by the crown construction agency, nevertheless a story would appear in the paper indicating that somebody gave me $3,000 and received a contract for it. It would be unfair to the vendor, unfair to national defence and, frankly, it would be unfair to me. We need to take this problem seriously. However, we do not want to replace corporate donations with stacked individual donations. That is a concern and it should be looked at.

I do support the bill but I believe the individual donation level is perhaps a little high. The corporation limits might be broadened to two or three ridings instead of just one but I do not feel all that strongly about that. I support the limits. I also support the ban on corporation donations to the centre and I support public funding of political parties as being democratic.

When the Prime Minister spoke on this issue earlier he said that there could be some unintended consequences. I would like to speak to a couple of them.

First, in Atlantic Canada most associations are federal and provincial at the same time. Unfortunately, in my province there is limiting legislation, and it is $6,000 individual and corporate. That means that the Liberal Party of New Brunswick could get a $6,000 donation and the Liberal Party of Canada could not take that. That means that eventually there would be a great deal of pressure to divide parties. From an operational point of view, that would be bad for the process, bad for my region and bad for those areas where there is no critical mass if we had to divide simply by virtue of the fact that the province could receive money that the feds could not receive. That would taint the money to some extent. That is an important feature. New Brunswick has this legislation. I was executive director of the Liberal Party at the time we negotiated it the other way. It is something we have to look it. We can fix it but it will take some work and it needs to be brought to the attention of the House.

I also think we need more time than the six months identified in the legislation in order to do this right. We are trying to make a transition from political parties that are supported by companies or unions to one that is fundamentally supported by individuals. That is the intent of the legislation. That will take some time and I am not sure six months is long enough. In our experience in New Brunswick, the transition was made over a couple of years.

I also believe that the provisions in the bill for nominations perhaps are too high. It is 50% of the allowable amount in an election and it should be 25% at a maximum.

I also would like to see the legislation speak to the question of third party advertising as has been mentioned.

To respond to the issue of public funds, which has been brought up by many members, I would like the House to know that in the province of New Brunswick we have received public funds since 1977-78. In fact, at its height we received $2.18 a vote, much more than the $1.50 proposed in the legislation. It is not unprecedented. We have had the rebates that were mentioned earlier and tax credits on donations in the past.

When Mr. Hatfield left office in New Brunswick in 1987, all of the pundits across the political spectrum, all of the editorialists, and all of the people observing the political process, when asked what was the most important thing Mr. Hatfield did for the province of New Brunswick, they all turned to political process financing with public funds.

At the end of the day this is a very important exercise in democracy and over time the taxpayers of Canada will come to see it that way, just as they have in my province of New Brunswick.

I would like to thank the government for introducing this important and overdue legislation. I would also like to thank those people in other parties who would find a way to support this. It is important for the country and the political process.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have had regarding this legislation is that there is a real potential for unfairness in the way the corporate world would be treated versus the union movement. I would ask my colleague from Fredericton, has he addressed his mind to this issue?

As I see it, there is nothing in the bill that would prevent a corporation with subsidiaries, or a franchise type of operation, from having each one of the subsidiaries or franchises giving the maximum amount, whether it stays at $10,000 or hopefully something lower, or it is all merged into a total of $10,000.

As I read the legislation, it is my understanding that each one of those franchises or subsidiaries would be able to give the $10,000 and multiples if they want to donate to more than one party, but that unions would not. Has the member looked at that and what would his comments be?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. It is my understanding that in fact the corporate limit of $1,000 for one riding would include the entire corporation and its subsidiaries. If there is some corporate arrangement where company X owns something in my constituency which is unrelated to the national office, that might be different.

I am not certain and do not want to suggest that I know, but as far as my understanding of the legislation goes, it is very clear. A corporation, regardless of how big such as the Royal Bank of Canada, would make one donation of $1,000 somewhere. That is it. Frankly, it is the same treatment for unions.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the danger in political financing tends to exist more at the individual or the riding level rather than the party level. I wonder what the member would think if we reversed the equation that is in the bill and put a limit on contributions to the riding of, say, $1,000 and allowed corporations to have a cap of, say, $20,000 or $30,000 if the money went to the party itself.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be opposed to that. Generally, the legislation speaks to the need to reassure Canadians that the political process is not affected by donations, and donations of that magnitude going to the centre would reflect badly on the process.

I am not suggesting for a moment that it is a legitimate concern. In my experience the reality is that the public tendering with the Government of Canada and provincial governments across the country is reasonably mature, but there is a perception, and from time to time we find new programs that are not yet attached to those systems which can find their way to activities that I do not think any of us would want. We need to do this to reassure Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-24. The member for Brandon—Souris was to speak on this bill, but it is my understanding that his plane is late so I will speak on his behalf.

This is a bill that has been much discussed among members of our caucus, our colleagues in this place, our peers, and certainly one that will continue to be discussed. In particular, the bill would address a number of issues to do with campaign and party financing relating to the electoral system we have in Canada. Probably most importantly, it would address the issues of how we actually report the funding of political campaigns.

The bill would require electoral district associations along with leadership and nomination contestants to disclose to the Chief Electoral Officer the amounts and names of everyone donating more than $200. They would also be required to disclose all expenses incurred. Currently only candidates and political parties are required to disclose donations received. The bill sets out the rules governing such reporting. It looks from the road as though we would have a more reliable system, hopefully a more accountable system and, one would assume, a more transparent system.

I am not the critic for this particular piece of legislation, however there is one question that I have been asking for which I have not received an answer from anyone. If there is someone on the government side with the answer to this question when I am finished my remarks and comments I would appreciate hearing it. My question is, how much of the system is financed by government already? That would include, of course, the amount that is given back by the government, the cost of auditing all the disparate accounts of the 301 members of Parliament in this place, the cost of running individual campaigns, the cost of auditing the books, and the actual amount of money that is given back.

We may be surprised if we had that information. I would have thought, in a fair, accurate and accountable system, that would have been the point that the Prime Minister would have made when he introduced this piece of legislation. There seems to be no willingness on the government to tell us how much is actually being paid now, although we would expect that if we had that information we would be better able to make a decision that we will have to make about this particular piece of legislation. It may be higher than we suspect; it may be lower than we suspect.

There are a couple of other issues. Aaron Freeman, in the Hill Times , writes about the campaign fundraising bill by the numbers. He says, “The sleeper issue is how it will increase the power of parties and not the power of members of Parliament”. I would think most of us in this place would want to have a finished product at the end of the day that actually gives more power to individual members of Parliament. Along with more power we would also expect more accountability and transparency.

Aaron Freeman makes a number of points, but two in particular are worth repeating. He writes:

Based on the 2000 election, the government calculates this will result in payments of $18.9 million a year. However, this figure ignores that our population increases each year. More importantly, it does not take into account that the last election's voter turnout of approximately 57% was a record low. If voter participation returns to the levels of the pre-Liberal era, and our population continues to expand at the current rate, we can expect to pay an additional $5 million to $10 million in public funds for parties in the coming years.

Some would say, and maybe correctly, that this is the price of democracy. I do not have an argument with that, but I do have a word of caution. If it is the price of democracy then we should know that up front during the debate. We should know the final cost at the end of the day and the full projections of where public funding for political campaigns is headed.

Freeman goes on to say that Bill C-24 would allow the donor to claim 75% of the first $400 instead of the current $200, determining the cost to taxpayers of the credit would be very complicated. The finance department would have difficulty figuring out the current credit costs and it would be hard to know how many donors would adjust their donation pattern in response to the new reforms.

The government estimates the added price tag at $3 million in non-election years and $6 million in election years. Quite a gap between $3 million and $6 million, of course, but again my question and point to my colleagues is that we really have some estimates that are based on record low voter turnouts. We do not know in any way, shape or form the actual cost of this piece of legislation to Canadian taxpayers at the end of the day.

I find that problematic. The idea that the taxpayers of Canada should finance political campaigns may be the right way to go. I am not saying it is not. I am saying I would like to see more information and accurate information laid on the table. All parliamentarians deserve that.

This bill would deal mainly with expenses and reporting of those expenses, nomination spending limits, surpluses and donation limits. The surplus and donation limits are worth going over again.

Currently, candidates for election must return any surplus to either their riding association or their party. Bill C-24 would require that surpluses incurred by leadership candidates also be transferred to the party or to a riding association. I think the horse is already out of the barn on that one because we have a number of leadership candidates out there, and maybe this is good judgment on behalf of the government, who are reported to have raised in excess of millions of dollars and no one knows where those leadership funds are. There are a number of them who are now ministers of the Crown and former ministers of the Crown who have left politics.

It would seem to me that either the government is speaking from knowledge that this was wrong to begin with and refused to change it, or it thinks that now it has had a number of plums and payouts to party faithful and that now all of a sudden it can change it for anyone else in the future, as it should never have been there to begin with, I might add.

Regarding donation limits, individuals would be banned from contributing more than $10,000 per year in total to a registered party and its electoral district associations, candidates and nomination contestants. I have listened to some of the questions being asked on this piece of legislation and this one seems to raise most of the issues. Perhaps this will get settled in committee; perhaps not. Perhaps we will say that although someone can only contribute up to $10,000 per year, if there are six members in a family, each of them could contribute $10,000 and therefore, although the family might be classified as one entity, it would actually be contributing six times the total allowable amount for a single person or a single entity as in the legal definition of the word.

Individuals would also be banned from contributing more than $10,000 to leadership contestants. Corporations, unions and associations would be banned from donating to any registered party or leadership contestant. However they would be able to contribute up to $1,000 in total per year to a party's candidates, nomination contestants and electoral district associations.

When I look at that, it begs a greater question that somehow corporations, unions and associations would be banned from donating to any registered party or leadership contestant, yet individuals would be able to donate up to $10,000. This question was raised by the member for Windsor--St.Clair. Why is a union or union office limited to a set amount? Whereas a corporation, which could pay bonuses to its employees and funnel the funds to leadership candidates or to a political party, are not? Maybe these issues are being addressed the same as the cost of this.

Exactly what is the cost to Canadian taxpayers now and what is the cost after the voter turnout is factored in, which was an alltime record low in the last election at 57%? If population increases at a scheduled rate and if voters start to turn out in numbers closer to what we could expect, at around the 70% mark, then that skews the figures on which this legislation is based.

The legislation also deals with reimbursement of election expenses. The annual allowance to political parties would be equal to roughly $1.50 per vote received by the party in the previous general election. To qualify, the party must have received either 2% of the votes cast nationally or 5% of the votes cast in the riding where the party ran a candidate. In the past that amount was 15% of the total votes received for the party to receive its share of its election expenses.

The point remains, we have changed the numbers and I do not see an accurate accounting of everything being factored onto one page. This should be a fairly simple operation. We should get a two page handout showing the cost of the last campaign, the cost of the next campaign and how it affects the riding associations and individual members of Parliament.

There seems to be a number of areas in the legislation where it spends as much time explaining a few simplistic things and as it does avoiding some difficult issues like trust funds and what happens to cabinet ministers in the Liberal government who run for the leadership and amass $2.5 million or $2.6 million in some of the trust accounts. Quite frankly we do not know where they are. One would expect that some of those accounts would be promissory notes, so if they run for leader they will receive $10,000 now and $50,000 later or $5,000 now and $10,000 coming later.

We do know a number of leadership hopefuls from the Liberal benches are no longer leadership hopefuls and they have not passed in their trust accounts. I assume many of them must have them in their pockets. The only way we can know differently is to have them tell us. No one is certainly offering that information. We can only assume that the individual leadership hopefuls still have the bulk of those funds in their own accounts.

Certainly, if this type of legislation does anything to prevent that type of abuse by public officials, then I absolutely support this part of the bill. This is the type of legislation at which we should be looking.

I really wish I had better faith in the government's managerial skills. I do not think we could discuss a single issue in the House, whether it is the upcoming budget tomorrow, if there is anything left in the budget that has not been leaked. We will find that out in 24 hours or less. Let us take a look at the track record. We are not certain this eliminates the trust funds and the ability to fundraise the way the leadership contestants have in the past.

We have not seen any issue that the government has handled with fiduciary responsibility to the Canadian citizens and taxpayers. We have not seen those issues come back to us with proper accounting. We have five million SIN cards, social insurance numbers, that are unaccounted. We have an $800 million cost overrun in a long gun registry and there is no guarantee it will work.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

It's already working.

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

That is an amazing statement even for a Liberal to say that the long gun registry is already working when it has cost Canadians a billion dollars. That is exactly my point. The government has zero managerial skills and is not great on manners either.

I would tend to think that most of us in the House would think this type of legislation is a positive move, that it is a step in the right direction. I do not have that guarantee. Although I am not the critic for the legislation, I am not convinced yet that there is enough accountability, transparency or that we know all the numbers and facts.

It looks like a step in the right direction. Is that step big enough and bold enough? I am not certain. What do Canadians think about it? Quite honestly I think they have become so turned off by the political process and some of the charades that occur here that they will just say that this few million dollars will be wasted anyway. They have no faith in the government to do the right thing with the dollars it has.

I will close on a comment that the right hon. member, the leader of the Conservative Party, made in this place. He closed his debate on this with this paragraph. He said that the Prime Minister had told reporters that this would be a question of confidence in the government. The bill on party financing of elections has become a question of confidence. It seems that everything is a question of confidence these days.

Obviously, there is some discussion, maybe some very hostile discussion, among all the players on this legislation. Why would he do that? This is a matter of fundamental political morality. Members should not be bound by the power of the party any more than they should be bound by the power of the purse. If the Prime Minister has the courage of his convictions, let him make and win his case on its merits. Let this important matter be subject to a free vote in Parliament. I totally agree with that.

Although I believe it will be our tendency to support the legislation, there are still a lot of questions to be answered yet.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from the beautiful riding of South Shore, which I would have to say is one of the 11 most beautiful ridings in Canada. We are aware that there are 11 ridings in Nova Scotia, which is an interesting coincidence.

My colleague asked about the question of how we could determine what the cost would be in the future, if we did not know what the voter turnout would be. Clearly the answer is that we cannot predict the exact voter turnout for future elections. However when we look at the systems across the country, in provinces that have used systems similar to this like in Quebec, New Brunswick and Manitoba, this seems to be the best way to calculate the manner of making payments to political parties and providing this kind of funding rather than having them relying upon corporations and having concerns expressed about the perception of influence by corporations.

He talked about the horse being out of the barn. I do not think he would propose that this law or any law would be retroactive. He is not proposing that it should apply to the Conservative Party leadership race that is going on, or the leadership race going on in other parties, or past leadership races because really it would be the same effect. If we are going to apply it to one that has already started, we might as well apply it to the leadership race in the Conservative Party in 1993. I do not think he proposes that we do that.

The other thing he talked about was why it was being done at this late date. If it is that good, if it should have been done much earlier, he might agree that perhaps his party could have done it also. If we are to get into the question of timing, there is no reason why it could not have been done by the PC Party when it was in government.

In any event, I appreciate the fact that he is supportive generally of the principle and recognizes the need for transparency and disclosure, which is what this is.

In terms of corporations paying bonuses to their employees and officers, and then transferring it, there are strict provisions against that in the bill. I do not know if he is aware of that but it is important he know this.

Does he have any other proposals on how we could calculate funding or funding parties in a different way so we could be certain of that funding?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Halifax West's intervention. The riding of South Shore is absolutely one of the most beautiful ridings in Canada. It is not just the coastal scenery in the South Shore, it is also inland as well. We certainly have a number of lakes, rivers and woodlands that are comparable to any anywhere in the country.

Directly to the question of whether the law could be applied to the leadership race that is underway now in the Conservative Party. I have no difficulty with that. If we are to have a set of rules, let us have a set of rules. The question of why we are doing this at this late date is legitimate. Why, at the twilight of the Prime Minister's leaving this place and after having been elected since 1993, do we suddenly have this interest in having some type of a more fair and equitable system for everyone? In politics that is a legitimate question.

I was not aware of how the system worked in New Brunswick prior to the member for Fredericton's comment, but certainly in Quebec and Manitoba it seems to be work fairly well. At least that is my understanding of it.

There is disconnect in how we finance political parties and how we finance individual members. Most of us as individual members of Parliament would look at our fundraising less. Those donations of $100, $150 and $200 are extremely important. Whereas political parties have depended in the past upon corporate donations and individual membership sales. It has caused a fair amount of disconnect between the voter and probably, and I am trying to think of a word that is parliamentary, a lack of trust in the party system because of the interlinking of the big unions and corporations and what is perceived as big government.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the gun control and seemed to be under the misapprehension that it was not working. Before I ask my question I would like to point out that in the latter part of the 1990s, the last three years, gun thefts dropped by 30% and guns reported missing dropped by a similar amount in the same period, but the most remarkable thing is that for the first time in history handgun murders exceeded long gun murders. This had never happened.

I think what is happening is that people are behaving as though the gun control system, including the registry, is already working. I look forward to the day when the system is complete because then it will be more effective.

I have two questions for the member. The member was talking about the valuable impact of this proposed legislation on leadership. I also am very pleased, and I would like his comments on it, that the proposed legislation will at last deal with nominations. It will really mean that a person does not have to be rich and be supported by powerful local interests to seek a nomination at the local level. That is really and truly the grassroots of our system. I think that this is one of the strengths of the bill. I would be grateful for my colleague's comments on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, quite honestly I would say on my behalf and on behalf of the majority of my colleagues in this place that I think any ordinary person in Canadian life can aspire, under the present system, to be a member of Parliament and actually attain that goal.

As for whether a person is rich or not, I am not certain that it helps the nomination process. There is a huge difference between the ability to run for politics in Canada and the ability to run for politics in the United States, for example, where it is extremely expensive. In the United States a person does have to be rich or perhaps very well connected. Perhaps if our system were to became more expensive in the future, this would help to prevent that, but for anyone now aspiring to a life of public service, I really do not think there is a huge obstacle to attaining that goal.

On gun control, this is another issue, but since the question was raised I would like to say it is not about gun control, absolutely not. There is nothing in the registry that has changed anything about gun control. What has worked with gun control is the gun control parts of the provision. The registry has been a dismal failure. Eight hundred million dollars later, it has been a dismal failure.

The gun control legislation as proposed by the Tories prior to this has worked well. It has reduced the number of violent crimes in the country. It is about safe storage and safe handling, the careful and responsible use of firearms. No one that I have ever talked to has been against that process. The problem is an overly expensive, overly complicated, unworkable registry that has been a dismal failure. The gun control legislation, which the Liberals did not bring in, absolutely has worked, while the registry is a dismal, utter failure.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague from the South Shore. There has been a great deal of consternation over the evidence that came out with regard to these trust funds, with I think most of them, if not all, being held by members of the governing party. I have been hearing figures of $230,000 for one and very substantial amounts for others.

I want to pursue the issue of retroactivity, because as I read the bill I am not convinced that the bill is going to prevent these trust funds from being set up. Would my friend make some comments as to whether there should be retroactivity with those we are aware of now, whether they would have to be terminated under this legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, if we really believe that the trust funds are out of hand, if individual members have $230,000 in their own names that they have fundraised, this is not a party account for any party in the House. It may be in the name of an individual party, but also for an individual in that party. I am not the legal expert on individual trust accounts. My gut reaction as a citizen would be that this legislation should be retroactive to trust accounts. I question why we would need them. It is one thing to raise money to put in the party's coffers. It is another thing to raise money that goes into a person's own pockets.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on this bill. I like it very much in terms of the transparency it brings to riding associations, to leadership contests and to nomination competitions, but my one major misgiving with respect to the bill is this suggestion of $1.50 per vote to the parties after an election.

I have the evidence before me as to why the government may decide that this is a very bad idea. I would call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the Elections Canada return for the riding of Burnaby--Douglas. That riding, that candidate, was entitled to spend $64,000 during the election campaign. That particular candidate, who sits in the House, actually raised $102,000 for the election campaign. That was $38,000 more than he needed. If we look at the return that is available on the Elections Canada website, we discover that out of that $102,000 the particular candidate received $15,000 from 12 unions, $175 from 2 individuals, and the rest, $82,000, from his own party.

What we have is a situation here where if this particular candidate were able to avoid having to raise money during an election campaign entirely, he would have saved more than enough money from his own party, not to mention the unions, but his own party that gave him the money.

This is the kind of danger that we are faced with if we have this $1.50 rule on votes. We may have a situation where individuals entering an election campaign will be able to get enough money from party head office such that they will not actually have to raise any money or do any grassroots work during the campaign at all.

What makes it worse, and leads us to I think a very positive aspect of the bill, is that for the $82,000 that the New Democratic Party gave to the member for Burnaby--Douglas, because of the current rules that lack transparency at the riding level, no one can see any of the individuals or corporations, or unions, for that matter, that contributed to the NDP, which in turn gave the money to the individual from Burnaby--Douglas. That is a major problem and a major abuse of process. There is no point having Elections Canada being transparent if the actual information we receive through a request to Elections Canada tells us nothing about the actual financing of the individual who ran for election.

So I feel very strongly that the centrepiece of this legislation is the requirement that riding associations are audited properly, make financial statements annually to Elections Canada, and provide a regime of transparency that enables Canadians to resume their faith, so that they can see where the money is coming from.

It also has the added advantage that by being able to see what happens in riding associations people will be able to see who are the individual candidates who really are in contact with their people and who raise money by small amounts, by having spaghetti suppers and small fundraisers, and who among us on all sides of the House receives money directly in large sums from individual entities. Because I would suggest very strongly that no riding association in this entire country needs to have any more money in its bank account than is half the allowable spending money during an election for its riding. In other words, because Elections Canada refunds half of one's spending, the most a candidate needs to spend in any election is about $35,000. So I have to ask why any riding association should need $60,000 or $70,000 or $100,000 or $500,000.

What we want to see by this proposed legislation is this kind of transparency so that riding associations that have these large sums will put these large sums where they belong, which is with the central office of party. Then the central office of the party will be less dependent upon corporate donations.

The other flaw in the bill is the suggestion that individuals should have a ceiling of $10,000 and corporations a ceiling of $1,000. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that when big money comes into small ridings, that I think is where there is a danger. If anyone here does not think that an individual MP has the ability to influence the government's agenda, even if that MP is in the opposition ranks, they are very wrong. I think it is very important that MPs be seen to be receiving small amounts of money from as many people or small businesses as possible, and larger donations should go to the party head office. I would suggest just for starters that there should be a cap on donations to riding associations of, let us say, $500 to $1,000. There should be a cap on donations, be they corporate or otherwise, to the main party of around $10,000. The way it is set up right now, I do find it flawed.

The other very progressive thing in the legislation is it spells out that contributions are not to come from people who are not citizens or landed immigrants of this country. One of the disturbing problems that we think we have, although we cannot prove it because there is a lack of transparency, is the suggestion that there are organizations, generally very social-conservative, that are in the United States, which may be trying to influence the development of the Canadian government's agenda and democracy in general for that matter, Mr. Speaker, by funnelling money to Canadian riding associations. In other words, and I will be very blunt, it could be American money coming into riding associations in Canada or even French money coming into riding associations in Quebec, where the French might think that there are separatist individuals there who might be arguing in favour. I know, it is improbable, but we do not know these things. The important thing is to make sure it does not happen.

And what this legislation does is explicitly forbid offshore money going as political contributions to ridings or individuals. I think that is a very positive thing. I must admit that I am not worried about France, but I am a bit worried about the National Citizens' Coalition, which is an organization that is not transparent and that has been very actively campaigning against the kind of Liberal democracy that we see in this country. I would not like to think that the National Citizens' Coalition might be funding some of my colleagues and might be receiving those funds from offshore.

This legislation addresses that problem, except it is flawed again. The penalty is too small. The penalty for contravention against any of these ineligible contributions to a political party or individual is only a maximum of $2,000 or a maximum of six months in jail. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that anyone who tries to circumvent the need for transparency, the need for contributions coming from legitimate sources as determined in the legislation, should be liable to a much more severe penalty.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think the government is on the right track.

I do not know about the trust accounts. The issue has come up and one of my colleagues opposite has mentioned it. I want to go on record here as saying that I absolutely deplore any thought that politicians in office should be receiving money that they may have control over, even indirect control over. I think that is absolutely inappropriate. The legislation unfortunately does not deal with how any money in these existing trust accounts will be disposed of. I regret that. I was surprised to even learn that some of my colleagues engage in that type of activity. I would suggest that philanthropy is the business of those with money. It is not the business of those who do not have money and politicians technically do not have their own money. They have the taxpayers' money and they should only use the money in the taxpayers' interests.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to this important debate on Bill C-24. The bill is supposed to bring much needed reform to Canada's campaign financing legislation but I think the legislation has failed to achieve almost all of its intended goals. I will explain this in more detail, but I think most Canadians do not understand how most campaign financing is currently done in Canada.

The Liberals would like Canadians to think that this piece of legislation is the magic wand that will restore openness, accountability and honesty to the Canadian political process. It will not. Money for political parties generally comes from two sources: private individuals and organizations such as businesses, unions and advocacy groups.

Some parties rely mostly on union donations and others rely mostly on donations from large corporations. I am proud to say that the Canadian Alliance relies on small donations from individual Canadians.

I think it is something when the opposition is funded mostly by average Canadians and the governing party is not. The Canadian Alliance receives 61% of its funding from individuals and the Liberals receive just 19% of their funding from individuals.

It takes a great deal of effort for politicians and their parties to solicit moneys in small amounts from any person. It takes humility and genuine sincerity to go door to door. It takes pride in one's work to ask for a piece of someone's paycheque based on one's performance. It requires that we remain connected with those who vote for us.

It takes a lot for an individual to sit, write a cheque, buy a stamp and mail it to a political party. It is no wonder large corporate donations appeal to well connected politicians. There is no need to go to the voters. There is no need to listen to their concerns. There is no need to put them at the top of the political agenda as shortcuts to a ballot box.

While corporate donations have a place in the political process, all parties would do well to focus on individuals too. Nonetheless, I would prefer that corporations voluntarily donated to political parties rather than force taxpayers to fund political parties.

As one of the few women in the House, I would like to address one of the largest myths surrounding the proposed legislation. Those in favour of the legislation have said that the bill would make it easier for women to enter politics and the House of Commons. I do not believe this is the case, nor do I think it would attract the kind of candidate Canadians deserve. I can tell anyone, male or female, that political life is very challenging, even more so than I first imagined. It is not a place for those who are insecure, weak or timid. Candidates usually get elected on their merits alone. That is what makes our democracy strong.

We have shown in the past that those who have wanted to get here and have been qualified have succeeded many times. This House has women who carry both themselves and their parties. The member for Edmonton North and the member for Saint John are just two examples of the women I speak of. These strong women detest the insulting strategies of the Liberals. They got here because they earned it themselves, not because someone held their hands and fought their battles for them. They deserve to be proud of their efforts and their constituents are proud.

The women in the Canadian Alliance all got here on their merits. There were no special deals. There were no parachute candidates and no quotas. I am proud to be one of those women who earned her seat. My constituents were given a fair choice. If I may say so myself, I think they made the right choice. I got here because I earned my constituents' respect. I did not get here because my leader rigged the nomination process in my favour.

Some women in the Liberal Party got here with a helping hand, which subverted the democratic process. I think this can only serve to taint their accomplishments. Would it not be nicer if they all knew they got here because they deserved to do so, not because someone more powerful did? Unfortunately the gender equality they sought to achieve and represent was only possible because of the gender equality they engaged to get here.

The Liberals want to slide a campaign financing bill through the House of Commons under the shady excuse that it will help women get elected. How shameful. Women make up the majority of the population and increasingly detest their treatment as a special interest group. If this bill is not good enough for Canadians as a whole, it definitely is not good enough for women.

If for a moment I could accept the arguments of the proponents of this bill, I still cannot understand why the taxpayer has to pay for political parties they do not support. If voter apathy is growing and political involvement is dropping, the Liberals must address these problems up front. If Canadians cannot be persuaded to willingly support political parties, they should not be forced to do so through their taxes.

It is interesting that the bill does not address falling voter participation in any way. Canadians are becoming increasingly disenfranchised by the current political system. One voter in my riding said in a fit of frustration that it does not matter who one votes for, the government still gets in. If anything, the bill would encourage voter turnout to continue to drop.

If parties are not forced to involve Canadians for their financing, they are likely to avoid involving them at all. When their income is taken straight off the paycheques of all Canadians, where is the incentive to go door to door? If Canadians think that they do not see enough of their elected representatives currently, just wait and see what happens if this bill gets passed.

I truly feel there is no better way to increase voter turnout and participation in our democracy than to allow Canadians to contribute as they see fit. What could be more frustrating than being forced to donate to a party a person does not support?

The Prime Minister and the Liberals just do not understand what Canadians hate, yes, hate: being forced to pay for things they do not support. Look how upset Canadians got when they were forced to pay for cable channels they did not support. A channel that may have been accepted by the majority was rejected because of the resentment of being forced to pay for it. Let us not do the same thing to our democratic process.

I must question the timing of this initiative. The Prime Minister and the former finance minister have had almost a decade to bring forward this campaign finance reform. They never did. What have they done instead? Instead they have sucked every dollar from the taxpayers' pockets at every turn. Now it seems that personal vendettas, oversized egos and fear of political revenge by average Canadians are the motivation for campaign finance reform.

The bill takes one step forward and two steps backward. For many years union members complained that they had no choice in how much money they donated to what party. They detested their lack of input into political party donations. They often had to support a political party of their executive's choice, not of their choice. It appears the government set out to address this legitimate concern. It is proposing to limit the union contributions so significantly that they play no significant role in a particular party's financing.

On one hand, the government wants Canadians to have control of how their money is used politically and on the other hand the government moves in the opposite direction. Now it is proposing that taxpayers be forced to contribute to political parties involuntarily through their taxes. Why is there a double standard?

Honestly, I think the bill is a pre-emptive strike by the Liberals to replace forced taxpayer funding for what must be diminishing corporate donations. I cannot imagine the Canadian business community is donating to the Liberals like it used to. Broken promises, fraud investigations, billion dollar boondoggles, a lack of legislative agenda, failed trade talks, limitless spending and other reasons come to mind.

Many think the corporate and union donation ban will hurt the former finance minister's leadership bid. I do not think so. What could be more of a favour to the Prime Minister's replacement than to put in place a guaranteed income. This is a small guy from Shawinigan plan to steal millions from taxpayers to fund another campaign for a party that has lost touch with Canadians and their priorities. This was the guy who was supposed to bring democracy back to the House of Commons but instead earned the title of the friendly dictator. What a double standard.

In summary, I must say that I do not agree that the bill will bring more women to the House of Commons.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, bashing politicians has become a national pastime in Canada. It is often done with tongue in cheek because I think that most Canadians who know their member of Parliament are quite pleased with their member of Parliament. They elected their member of Parliament not for what he or she promised to do but rather for what he or she had done and the credentials that he or she brought to the job. It is much the same situation with banks. Canadians hate banks but they sure do love their own bank because the tellers are so good. It is one of those situations when talking about politicians.

The national pastime being what it is, to bash politicians, this will be a very difficult bill to deal with, but there must be a reason. As a preamble what I would like to do is inform Canadians. Members know them but I am not sure that Canadians are well aware of what the rules of the game are with regard to people in politics.

People who are nominated to be candidates in an election during the election campaign have an opportunity to raise money. For those contributions, there are rules that provide for tax credits, obviously generous tax credits, which would help those candidates raise the money they need to run their election campaigns. Following an election campaign, any moneys that are left over have to go to a riding association.

Every party has riding associations in all 301 constituencies across Canada. In non-election years, those riding associations continue to do things such as policy development, constitutional work and fundraisers to cover their mailing costs and their meeting costs, as well as to build up a bit of a war chest to help support their respective candidates in the next election. Those contributions to riding associations whether they be through cocktail parties or dinners, also have eligible tax credits under the Canada Elections Act.

At the same time, the national parties are the umbrellas over all of that. There are a number of national parties. There are five official parties in the House today. All those parties continue to exist as umbrellas in the continuity with a broad base of membership from all ridings across the country. Their responsibilities also include things such as developing policy, supporting their caucus members, those members who are elected to Parliament, as well as fundraising to pay the bills for operating a large national organization. Members know the importance of their research facilities and the support people that are necessary to communicate to Canadians what their party stands for.

The political infrastructure exists so that Canadians have choices. The parties put forward candidates and the party that elects the most members of Parliament forms the government. Its platform is well known, its leader is known, et cetera.

It takes a great deal of work to earn the respect of the people of Canada, the voters, and to be in this place. Members will know that to be in this place is a great honour. We are 301 people out of 31 million. It is a great honour. I know that all members here very much value the opportunity we have been given by our constituents.

This is called the political process. This is called providing democracy with the instruments and the vehicles that are necessary to have a dynamic policy debate.

There are differences among all the parties on some items but on other items they are very close. The philosophies are not totally different. There are not people who are so far out of the ballpark that they are not appealing to some corner of the country. That is evidenced by the fact that they have representation in this country.

We need this public process. We need political parties. We need riding associations. We need candidates. It is all part of the political infrastructure that supports the democratic parliamentary system that we have in Canada.

I do not want to talk about the comparison with the United States. It is not comparable. The United States system is based simply on money. In Canada we have a system of publicly supported financing.

Under our system every Canadian has the opportunity to be a member of Parliament because they do not have to worry about being outspent by someone. We have laws that limit how much someone can spend on elections and limits on amounts that can be contributed. Contrary to the laws in the U.S., our laws ensure that every Canadian has the opportunity to run for public office and to become a member of Parliament for the party of their choice or even as an independent. That is why the publicly financed system is there.

The Prime Minister said very clearly that the principle of public financing of our political system has been well established and well accepted in Canada. However it is still part of politics, which goes back to the original premise, that it is a national pastime to bash politicians and politics.

Another aspect to the bill has to do with bringing into the process the whole idea of nominations and trying to put some regulatory framework around the limits that can be spent for nominations. I will not talk about individual details, which I could probably argue in many ways, but when I sought the nomination for the Liberal Party of Canada in 1979, when the Conservative government fell, I was not a member of the Liberal Party of Canada at the time. I was active in my community and I was very interested. Someone came to me and asked if I would like to be considered for the nomination for the Liberal Party in the riding. I did not give it very much thought but then I thought I might and that started to snowball. I spent about $300 of my money. I spray painted some signs in my basement with some friends.

[An hon. member]

How old were you?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

I was 32 years of age at the time. We photocopied a curriculum vitae. I went through it with five other candidates to win the nomination. I was fortunate to win that nomination but I went out to all of the people, the network that I had developed in all of my community work over a large number of years since I graduated from university. I was always involved in charities and other works, the Jaycees, the Terry Fox run, cancer charities and so on. I won that nomination because I had established my reputation within my community and I had a network of people who knew what I did. I was able to go to them and say “This is what I would like to do, you know me, will you help me?”

That is how a nomination is won. It is not bought. I do not accept the basis that one can buy a nomination. It has to be earned. If someone is going to suggest to me that by establishing some kind of limits and lowering it down and reducing the amount of money that can be spent on a nomination that will somehow help people, I would disagree. Anyone in Canada who wants to be a candidate for anyone of the parties the best thing they could do is what 80% of the people in this place I know do, build up a CV that shows a very solid community service record of unpaid, volunteer work and giving back to the community. That is how someone becomes a member of Parliament.

With regard to the overall legislation, the overriding premise has to do with either the fact or the appearance that large corporations have undue influence over politicians, parties, cabinet ministers, members of Parliament and government. That is the essence of the bill and that is what the bill tries to address. Even in question period today there was a question about big money and contracts. This is the appearance. This is what people are representing as the facts.

The Prime Minister of our country said that we need to address the appearance of undue influence and that we need to address the issue of large corporations controlling what happens in the lives of Canadians.

I think the basic premise of the bill is very good. We must address that. It may not be palatable to Canadians to talk generally about politics but we do have to deal with the appearance as well as the fact, if it exists, that large contributors can and will try to influence.

However we also have to recognize that if they are not going to be exerting influence by their donations, they will just turn to lobbyists and have lobbyists come after us as well. We have to be aware of the realities. I think we have much to discuss but let us deal with the appearance of government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too am happy for the opportunity to address Bill C-24. I think the bill is an opportunistic opportunity for the Prime Minister to take some of the heat off the ethical breakdown in government.

We have been literally hammered over the last couple of years with boondoggles, cost overruns, misuse of taxpayer money and all sorts of accusations regarding whether or not there was proper accountability and whether or not ministers properly fulfilled their duties.

The Prime Minister made a big speech saying that he would be making some changes, one of them being, of course, the proposed code of conduct for MPs. Even though none of these scandals involved backbench MPs on the Liberal side or opposition MPs, they have become part of the focus, moving away from the accountability of ministers, who the Prime Minister was quite happy to promote during the election of 1993 where he said that when he became Prime Minister those ministers would be held accountable. We frankly have not seen that.

In any event, now we have, as part of the package, electoral reform. We find that it is an interesting approach that the government is taking. It is interesting because of the fact that it has decided to change the way political parties and candidates are financed.

A couple of times in the debate today it has been mentioned that the Canadian Alliance would probably accept this money. I want to make it very clear that we are opposed to the bill because we believe that some of the measures in it are just plain wrong. However I want to make it very clear that we will obey and abide by the law that is passed.

The Prime Minister has announced that he will force the bill through by making it a confidence vote. In other words, if members of Parliament choose to vote against the bill it would show a lack of confidence in the government. The government's own members are being browbeaten into voting for this whether they agree with it or not. I think that is unconscionable. It is a breach in the democratic process.

At any rate, the Prime Minister has brought this forward and will jam it through and, with that, we will have some notable changes in the way that political parties and candidates are financed.

I would like to be on record as saying that some of the measures in the bill are laudable. I certainly agree with at least the word “accountability”. The Liberals tend to use the word a lot but they do not often produce the results that we are looking for. However I do believe in accountability and openness.There is nothing wrong with having true accountability.

However there is one thing that I have come to understand, one can refuse to be open and accountable in two ways: first, by giving no information; and second, by giving so much that it gets lost in the shuffle. I had that experience not too long ago when I asked for information. Several crates of documents were delivered to my office. All of that information can be called accountability. I looked at it and noticed that a lot of it was simply photocopies of photocopies of the same thing over and over again. It was just a way of trying to snow me. I received the stuff I asked for and I could no longer say I did not get it. However the usefulness of it was minimized because of the fact that the volume was so great. I think this is one of the features of the current rules.

We have rules about publicly disclosing the donations of people who give $200 or more to a party or to a candidate. Frankly, I think that is part of the overkill. I guess there is nothing wrong with knowing who donated to whom. Sometimes people join a party, not because they believe in that party, but because they want to become operatives in the party for spying reasons. I have heard of that happening. I suppose it does happen from time to time. Would it not be interesting if some of the labour unions knew to which parties their bosses belonged in order to get on the mailing list or other things like that?

I think it is redundant to ask for public disclosure of small donations. It is the larger ones that could be open to questioning because they could be used to influence the party at different times.

The philosophical question is how political parties should be financed. We all accept that there are political parties in this country and that hey should have enough money to operate. It is unfortunate that from time to time political parties go into debt. That ought not to be.

I remember with pride being part of the Reform Party in 1993 where one of our campaign slogans was that the party would run its election campaign the way Canada should be run, debt free. We did that for a number of years during several elections. I as an individual candidate did not spend money I did not have in order to avoid going into debt. I think that is a laudable goal. We need to make sure there is a solid base for the financing of political parties.

I strongly believe that it should be voluntary and not coerced. Frankly, if a member of the Liberal Party came to my door and asked if I would help the party raise money for the next election by buying some tickets to its fundraising dinner I would decline the offer. I do not believe the Liberal government is doing a good job of governing the country. I think it needs to be replaced. To ask me to finance its next election campaign would be an affront.

I know people will say that the bill would not take money away, except in proportion. If people vote for them that is how they get their money. It is based on the votes.

I understand that part but in my riding of Elk Island where, I would venture to say, two-thirds of the people would support the Canadian Alliance and about 20%, one in five, would support a Liberal--those are numbers based on the last election--it would be an affront to take all those taxpayer dollars out of my riding and say “That part of your tax dollars which goes to support political parties will be divvied up 50% to the Liberals and 20% to the Canadian Alliance”. Right away there is an anomaly when we bring in that kind of a scheme.

I think it is anti-democratic. I believe democracy is served when individuals are free, when they are given the freedom to support the organization or the political party of their choice, not because it is brought in.

I remember how upset I was, as a forced union member, to watch the union give $100,000 to the NDP. I am diametrically opposed to the principles of the New Democratic Party, as it probably is opposed to many of the things in which we believe. However to force me to pay my dues and then watch the money go to the New Democratic Party was a personal affront to me. It was a violation of my personal freedoms.

That same principle applies when we are taking taxation dollars and giving them to political parties. That will increase cynicism toward political parties and not decrease it.

In order to strengthen the amendment that we proposed, I would like to propose a subamendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended by inserting after the word “state” the words “, an increase from approximately 40% to over 70%,”

For explanation, there are also some commas included in there but I did not read the commas because they are symbols and not words.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I will take the amendment under advisement and get back to the member for Elk Island very shortly. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg South.