House of Commons Hansard #62 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was parties.
David Anderson Canadian Alliance Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, in June of last year, Naber Seed & Grain went bankrupt. The federal government's system for bonding licensed grain dealers was supposed to protect farmers but clearly failed. More than 100 farmers were owed money and will now receive only 52¢ on the dollar.
The government is so quick to regulate but so slow to take responsibility. Does the Minister of Agriculture accept responsibility for this fiasco? What is he doing to remedy the situation?
Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, one of the jobs of the Canadian Grain Commission is to see that handlers and buyers of seed and grain in western Canada are bonded. It does that on a frequent basis to try to ensure that there is sufficient bonding in order to cover the liabilities it would have, but I have to say that it does not do it every month because of the costs of doing that and the administration there. It was anticipated that it would have sufficient coverage, but it is working with the farmers and with the company in order to do the best that it can.
David Anderson Canadian Alliance Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, the facts surrounding the case are clear. If the government had monitored its own financial guidelines, these prairie producers would have been paid in full for their grain. Instead, the licensing system, which is supposed to protect farmers, failed.
Even though the shortcomings of this system were well known long before the Naber Seed bankruptcy, the government did nothing to fix the situation. Will the Minister of Agriculture admit that his failure to act early left farmers on the hook and out of money?
Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that in the view of the Canadian Grain Commission, in conjunction with the monitoring of the actions and the economic activity of the Naber Seed & Grain Company, it was viewed to have sufficient bonding. However, there was a situation that occurred such that the assets of the company, for a short period of time, did exceed its bonding, and unfortunately it was not all covered.
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Speaker, a secret UN document obtained by an American NGO predicts that 1.5 million people will be displaced in Iraq in the event of a war. Worse still, 30% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 could die from malnutrition, yet no assistance plan has been developed.
Can the Minister for International Cooperation tell us if the government is ready to put as much energy into helping possible civilian victims of war in Iraq as it is into preparing for war by sending officers to Qatar?
Susan Whelan LiberalMinister for International Cooperation
Mr. Speaker, we have been involved in humanitarian efforts in Iraq since 1991, and in the surrounding area. There is presently a contingency planning effort going on by the United Nations call for $37 million. We have already committed $1.7 million to that. The new call came yesterday for $123 million from all countries and we are looking at that. We definitely are looking at the humanitarian needs of Iraq.
Hélène Scherrer Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Speaker, in three months, three of our colleagues have experienced heart problems.
This emphasizes how important it is for us, with our fast-paced schedules, to adopt lifestyle habits that will prevent health problems.
Could the chief government whip tell the House what measures she plans on proposing to the Board of Internal Economy with regards to a fitness consultant to help us?
Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Mr. Speaker, several members of Parliament have raised concerns to me about this issue. As you know, I have already spoken about this issue and written to ask that it be put on the agenda for the next meeting of the Board of Internal Economy.
Like any good employer today, the House of Commons has to be concerned about the health and well-being of those who work here. I can assure the member that the board will address her concerns, and soon.
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Last Friday, Longueuil mayor Jacques Olivier indicated to me that the economic development of the new city was stagnating because businesses will not move there or investment further in the area until the uncertainty surrounding the extension of highway 30 has been cleared up.
Could the Minister of Transport tell us what the timeframe is for the extension of highway 30?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the hon. member, who is well known to the House.
I want to assure the House that my colleague, the Minister of Industry, who is responsible for infrastructure, and the officials at Transport Canada are working on this issue together with the Government of Quebec. I hope that an agreement will soon be reached.
Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's attempt to force every Canadian to register their rifles and shotguns has been a dismal billion dollar failure.
Canadians living in Nunavut have a court order saying that they do not have to register their firearms. First nations people have said they will not register as it is against their treaty rights. Hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Canadians have not registered as of January 1 and have sworn that they never will.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Instead of forcing firearms registration on some Canadians and not on others, why does he not treat everyone equally and repeal the gun registration law?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the member should come on side with the government and talk about Canadian values and public safety as well.
In terms of numbers, I must mention in the House that 1.9 million owners' licences have been issued, 6 million guns registered, 9,000 licences revoked or refused to potentially dangerous individuals, and police forces are using the registry 2,000 times per day.
We are talking about values. The government is firmly committed to keep proceeding with gun control and this is exactly what we will do.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, three times since February 2001 my colleague from Windsor--St. Clair has raised the issue of Canadians paying unfair tax levels on American social security benefits.
In June 2001, my predecessor, the former deputy prime minister, assured us that the former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, was looking into the matter. Of course, that member himself failed to give an answer to the question.
Could the Prime Minister tell us if two years is long enough to keep his government's promise to look into this situation? Will he address this injustice or will he continue to build the surplus at the expense of seniors, the disabled and working Canadians?
Bryon Wilfert LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue for members on this side of the House. In less than an hour, the member will get his answer.
Presence in GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Her Excellency Ilinka Mitreva, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Presence in GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Marc Laffineur, Deputy to the French National Assembly and President of the French branch of the France-Canada Interparliamentary Association, with an accompanying delegation.
The House resumed 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, and of the amendment to the amendment.
Dick Harris Canadian Alliance Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I know that members opposite really want to be reminded of the scandals and corruption that have followed the government and the Prime Minister since 1993. They also want to be reminded that when the House debated issues of national importance, issues that affected our children, the way families provide for themselves, national security and how we get along with our international partners, the Prime Minister never was involved in those debates. Apparently they were not that important to him. Probably he was spending a lot of time with his lawyers and advisers trying to figure out how to stay one step ahead of the scandals and corruption that have followed the government since 1993.
Then the Prime Minister suddenly appeared in the House and wanted to speak. This is his pet bill. Bill C-24 is an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act as it applies to political financing. What a bill of monumental importance to the country.
Do people understand how this pet bill of the Prime Minister's is going to change the face of our nation and make it so much better for everyone who lives in this country? Our children will be safer on their way to school and while playing in the park; criminals that commit heinous crimes in our country will be given time that reflects the crime; the homeless will have homes; people who are suffering from social injustice will be treated equally; all because of this nation-changing bill of the Prime Minister's. Mr. Speaker, does that sound like a lot of poppycock? Well you bet it is, just like the bill.
This bill that the Prime Minister finds so important will serve no other purpose than to provide yet another tool for the government, the Prime Minister and whoever follows him, to continue even more so to manipulate the taxpayers' money within the treasury of the government. The bill will be of monumental benefit to whom? The governing party.
The Prime Minister is trying to create the facade that he is a person who believes in integrity, in ethics, in what is right and wrong, through this bill. This is despite the last nine and a half years of the country watching him dodge scandal bullets through his political days as Prime Minister, from the Grand-Mère golf course and hotel episode to exonerating his friends and ministers who have been involved in scandals and corruption.
It is a facade. It points to the sheer arrogance and hypocrisy of the Prime Minister, who through this bill wants Canadians to think that he is a nice guy. Well it ain't going to sell because all the bill is for is to extract more dollars out of the taxpayers for political use.
The bill simply replaces the government's addiction to corporate and union political funding with its addiction to taxpayer funding. That is not the answer. Taxpayers cannot be forced to support a political party they normally would not support in the polls, but that is exactly what the bill is trying to do.
The Canadian Alliance is opposed to direct subsidization of political parties. Any public funding must be tied to voluntary donations coming from individuals. Why would a government that purports to believe in democracy and fairness, through a piece of legislation, force Canadians to support a political party financially that they would not support in the polls? That is the big question.
Why is the Prime Minister doing it? It is part of a bigger scam of some sort. Given time, we will figure out exactly what he is up to, we can bet on it, given his record as Prime Minister. Scandals have followed him from 1993 to the present. Scandals have followed the ministers whom he has sent off to places where they can be out of touch and away from the long arm of the law in many cases.
This bill is a cover up. The Prime Minister is trying to make us believe through the bill that he is concerned about how the political system has been funded through corporate donations and even individual donations in the past, that he is concerned about the perception that there may be something wrong with the way politics has been funded. In the same breath he is saying that through his bill he will make everything transparent and ethical.
Canadians almost choke on the word “ethics” as it comes from the Prime Minister. Some days in the House we wait for the lightning to come through the ceiling when the Prime Minister talks about ethics in his party.
We cannot support the bill. It represents a massive shift in the sources of contributions to political parties, from the voluntary actions of Canadians to the mandatory imposition on Canadians to support political parties, whether or not they would support them in the polls. We cannot and will not support the bill.
John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of being a Liberal is there is no need to throw away dollars on lottery tickets. As a Liberal, all one does is raise taxes when there are dreams that must be realized.
This legislation is a lottery win for the Liberal Party and its huge debt. We know that debt was a major concern because one of the Prime Minister's aides was reported to have said this legislation would wipe out the party debt within months.
Canadians who have taken time to look at this legislation do not like it. They see it for what it is. It would force all Canadians to participate, no matter what party they support and no matter how deeply or not they want to be involved in politics. It would force every living Canadian to spend money on something that might or might not be a personal priority. We must remember it would eliminate the debt of the Liberal Party of Canada.
The legislation claims that it would open up the nomination process to more candidates. How can that be when the Liberal Party believes that candidates for election should be appointed by the Prime Minister? There cannot be an open nomination process when a dictatorial decision is made by the Prime Minister about filling certain quotas. If we look closely at this bill, it would do just the opposite to what the Liberals are saying about nominations. It would make it more difficult for a new person to walk along and join the process. The Liberals can hire an official agent or someone else, but a lot of people just cannot afford to do that.
It is obvious to anyone watching this place that the governing party looks kindly on the benign dictatorship style of governing. It is certainly obvious to those backbench members who have recently learned that they are no longer able to speak to certain issues that arise in this place. As we understand it, unless members opposite are prepared to stand and cheer for their leader, they will not be allowed to stand in the chamber to address any issue of their own.
We go beyond any benign dictatorship when a government forces citizens to give their hard earned tax dollars to parties they do not support. It should be noted that Canadians are learning with each passing day that any support they gave the Liberals in the past was probably a mistake.
The party to which I belong has long been a proponent of real democratic reform. We have been proposing and promoting democratic reform in Canada since 1987. Because of that, plus many other reasons, we have enjoyed tremendous financial and moral support from thinking Canadians. The Liberals, if they ever were a party of reform, lost the right to claim that decades ago.
Ours is a party where candidates for the leadership would not restrict membership sales in their own party so as to strengthen their grip on the party. Candidates would strangle their own party if that is what it takes to lead it.
I hope Canadians will take note of this legislation and remember it at the next election. If they do not remember, we will be only too happy to remind them. We will tell Canadians that the Liberals, their kissing cousins the Conservatives, their closest kin the New Democrats and yes, those great patriots the Bloc Québécois, all supported this legislation.
The Liberals like it because it fits their philosophy, “make taxpayers cough up for every hare-brained scheme that comes along”. The Progressive Conservative kissing cousins like it because they think it would buy them a little respectability and a few days more of life. The New Democratic Party closest kin like it because they too have debts and believe that hard work and earning one's way is for someone else. The super patriotic Bloc Québécois likes it because it loves the idea of joining hands to pockets with Canadians from coast to coast.
If the Prime Minister thinks this legacy legislation would whitewash the record of his tenure, he has another thing coming. No one will ever forget his cavalier attitude and dismissal of the millions that were stolen in the advertising scandal. No one will ever forget the scandalous firearms registration fiasco or the HRDC billion dollar boondoggle. Nor will anyone ever forget the billion dollar GST fraud scandals as it becomes an increasing part of the public consciousness. As our leader said so succinctly, “The true nature this bill is simply the replacement by the government of its addiction to large business and union donations with an addiction to taxpayer funding”.
Another point should be made. If a governing party falls from favour with the electorate, that party will have no worry about its future. It would not have to worry about individual or corporate contributions shrinking because the party would no longer enjoy the confidence of the country. This legislation would guarantee the survival of the party because by law the taxpayers would be forced to give it life support. It means that no matter how incompetent, despotic, arrogant or undeserving of support, that party would continue to exist because taxpayers would be forced to support it.
Let me put it another way. In 1993 the Progressive Conservatives went into a campaign with a loaded war chest. It did not matter. The people were fed up and threw them out. The war chest was empty at the end of that campaign and it is still empty because Canadians have never forgiven them and probably never will.
The Liberals, knowing their days are numbered and how ragged and down at the heels the Conservative Party is, took precautionary measures. They concocted this scheme to guarantee their survival. No matter how disgusted the voters are, it means that when the ancient mariner takes over he will have all those lovely crisp Canadian taxpayers' dollars to toss around like rose petals.
It could happen that the Prime Minister, who knows a bad idea when he sees one, might withdraw the legislation. If he thinks it would in any way help his successor, he might decide to take a pass on the legislation. Canadians would like to take more than a pass on the legislation. I will leave it to them to make that point to the Liberals when they meet in their constituencies.
Taxpayers should take notice of some facts and figures. They are already subsidizing slightly less than 40% of the funding of the parties in Canada. The legislation would push that direct subsidization to beyond 70%. It would not matter which party they support, where they live or what they believe. They would be paying into a huge pot of money that the Liberals are forcing them to fill. Of course the Liberals would be only too happy to be the first at that pot so they can get rid of their embarrassing debt.
Is this really an advancement for democracy? No, it is not. Our leader nailed it when he called it an autocratic solution to a democratic problem. The Liberals, the governing party which replaced the Conservatives, created the democratic problem. Canadians began to lose faith in politics when the Conservatives governed. It grew into a landslide after they had a few years of Liberal arrogance to watch.
If people thought they saw an angry electorate in 1993, wait till Canadians get wind of the legislation. Right now it has not hit the public consciousness, but when it does, the reaction will hit like a freight train.
It is not democracy when individuals are forced to support parties they do not favour. It takes even more control out of the hands of individual citizens and puts it in the hands of political operatives. Supporters of the Canadian Alliance will be outraged when they learn they are subsidizing the New Democrats or the Bloc Québécois; forget about the Liberals.
The two or three dozen Canadians who support New Democrats will be outraged when they learn that they are being forced to support the Canadian Alliance. A similar number of people who still think Conservatives have credibility will be shocked and appalled, and write letters to the editor expressing their outrage at being forced to subsidize the Liberals.
We must admit that the Canadian Alliance would benefit from the legislation, but we can and will argue that we had no idea that this legislation was coming and no hand whatsoever in its drafting. We can argue that even if corporate donations were banned outright, the Canadian Alliance would survive because our supporters give generously as individuals.
The figures do not lie. In 2001 the Liberals received donations from fewer than 5,000 individuals which accounted for 19% of their total fundraising. That same year nearly 50,000 individuals contributed to the Canadian Alliance and that provided over 61% of our funding. Why is the Prime Minister doing this?
In 2004 the Liberals would haul $8 million out of this forced fund that would nicely dispose of their $6.5 million debt, so the unable and the incompetent would have their debts and mistakes covered by the unwilling. It is the Liberal way. When the Liberals lose $1 billion to boondoggles they call in the taxpayers. When they lose $1 billion to GST fraud they call in the taxpayers. They lost a few million to fees and advertising and gave the minister an ambassadorship knowing that taxpayers would cover the cost.
This is bad and arrogant legislation. It is undemocratic and self-serving. It is disrespectful legislation that, as Canadians become more aware of it, will harden the resolve of Canadians to throw the Liberals out at the next election.
The Alliance will vote against it. If there is some reasoned thought on the other side to withdraw the legislation, we would be happy to offer a suggestion on how it could be improved. The only problem is that the suggestions we would make would not yield a windfall for the debt-ridden Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats, so I am not optimistic that we will be asked for very much advice.
This is bad legislation. Canadians will see it for what it is and they will tell their members when they go home on the spring break. I am sure some common sense will take place and we can look at some proper way to fund election time.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this bill that seeks to enhance confidence in our political system. This is particularly interesting because it allows me to discuss an issue of great importance to my constituents, namely, how we ensure that our political system reflects high ethical standards.
I would like to focus in particular on public financing measures included in the bill and their importance in this legislation which would enhance Canadian confidence in the honesty and openness of our political system.
The Canadian electoral system belongs to all citizens and the support of taxpayers for the maintenance of an effective electoral system is vital. Public funding of the federal electoral process is a longstanding principle in Canada. The reimbursement of party and candidate electoral expenses, and tax credits for contributions, have been around since 1974 when the Election Expenses Act established a new regime for the financing of federal elections in Canada.
The legislation was a response to a growing concern about the fundraising and financing of political parties. In addition to providing for improved disclosure and spending limits, it was recognized at that time that public financing was an important part of the political financing equation.
The importance of public financing to a healthy democracy is such that all provinces have introduced public funding measures to a lesser or greater degree. All provinces provide tax credits for donations, some nearly as generous as the tax credit that is proposed in this legislation and some less. Reimbursement of party expenses is provided in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
In Quebec, for example, the rate of reimbursement is 50%, as is proposed in this legislation. Reimbursement of candidate expenses is provided in all provinces except Alberta and British Columbia. Three provinces, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, provide annual public allowances to political parties.
Quebec in particular has been providing a public allowance since 1975. The current allowance is 50¢ per elector. New Brunswick provides an allowance of $1.69 per vote obtained in the last election. Prince Edward Island provides for an allowance of $2 based on the number of valid votes for a party's candidate in the previous general election.
When the Lortie Commission studied these issues in the early 1990s it noted that the value of candidate and party reimbursements to our electoral democracy had been clearly established.
At that time the commission focused in on candidate and party reimbursements and recommended that reimbursement be tied to a subsidy per vote received. In retrospect, this recommendation is interesting in the context of the current legislation which in fact proposes a public allowance for parties tied to votes received.
When the Chief Electoral Officer examined this issue in his report on the 37th general election he noted that the purpose of public funding was to increase access to the political process. Together with election expense limits public funding is intended to contribute toward a more level playing field in the electoral process.
In his report he recommended that the threshold for candidates to be qualified for reimbursement should be lowered to 5% of the valid votes cast in their electoral district in order to increase access to the political process and broaden national participation. I understand that, since then, the Chief Electoral Officer has also suggested that the rate of reimbursement for election expenses for parties should be increased from 22.5% to 50%.
Clearly, the measures that are proposed to prohibit corporate and union donations and to limit individual donations will have a cost, a cost that is justified to remove the perception of influence over the political process. If we ban corporate and union campaign contributions and restrict large donations by individuals, how do we make up for the resulting shortfall in revenues that parties and candidates might experience?
Candidates and parties need adequate funding to fulfill the important role they play in our political system.
How do we encourage individual Canadians to pick up some of the slack?
The financial measures introduced in Bill C-24 build on existing measures in the bill, as well as previous recommendations and practices in other jurisdictions, in particular, the provinces.
I would now like to speak a little bit about financing measures. The rate of reimbursement for electoral expenses would be increased, according to the bill, from 22.5% to 50%. This would cover in part some of the potential losses that registered parties would incur under the reform.
It would also provide parity between parties. The reform would also add polling expenses to the definition of allowance expenses for reimbursement and raise the ceiling for expenses correspondingly.
Also, according to the bill, the threshold for candidates to qualify for reimbursement of election expenses would be lowered from 15% to 10%. This reflects the reality of our multi-party system.
Also, the bill introduces amendments to the Income Tax Act to double the amount of an individual political contribution that is eligible for a 75% tax credit from $200 to $400.
One of the objectives of the government is to encourage transparency. I would submit that this is exactly what the legislation does.
By voting, citizens would be effectively directing to which party their tax money would go. This would provide a direct link between the voter and the party that the leader of the opposition has been calling for. This is well balanced legislation. I am surprised and shocked to see some of my colleagues standing up in the House and challenging the legislation.
In fact, members of other political parties have seen the merits of the legislation and have stood up and endorsed it because they knew it was the right thing to do.
In our democracy Canadians and taxpayers deserve better than the partisanship that is being advanced by members of the official opposition. It is high time they spoke about the facts in the legislation and moved away from the fiction that they have been talking about over the past few weeks.
I commend the Prime Minister on the leadership he has taken on these issues. I also commend the House leader who has continuously done everything he could possibly do in consultation with the other House leaders to ensure the fast passage of the legislation so it can pass through the other House and become law.
I would also like to see the legislation go further, or an amendment to the legislation go further by making it a law that every Canadian must vote, as is done in Australia, Brazil, Italy and other jurisdictions around the world.
It is high time for us to move forward with the legislation as it has been proposed. At the end of the day it would need the collective action of all of us in order to move forward with such wonderful legislation. I would like to see my colleagues voting for it.
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, frankly I must say loudly and enthusiastically that I would never have thought a day would come when I would stand in this House to speak on a bill modelled after the public financing legislation passed in Quebec in 1977, at the instigation of René Lévesque. It has happened, and I must say that I take pride in that.
I was in attendance when the Prime Minister made his speech, and I want to point out that he paid tribute to René Lévesque. Let me read what he said. This is Jean Chrétien speaking, “I was not always in agreement with René Lévesque—”
Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. You are a veteran of this House and, as such, you know very well that you are not to refer to the Prime Minister by name.
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, what a blunder. It was enthusiasm.
I repeat what the right hon. Prime Minister said:
I was not always in agreement with René Lévesque on everything. But there is no doubt that the party financing legislation he passed in Quebec has served as a model for democracy. It has worked well. This bill builds on that model—
And he added, and I am not totally in agreement with him on this, that the bill:
—corrects some of its flaws.
First, let us focus on the essentials. The Prime Minister of Canada said that this law was a model for democracy and that it worked well. I want to stress that, as a representative of Canadian parliamentarians on the Council of Europe, I had the opportunity to take part in a meeting on the best legislation on party financing. Quebec's law is one of the ones that stood out.
I am happy to point out that this “model” law was inspired by other work done, for example, in California. The people of California recommended that Quebec exclude financing by all corporations, in other words by all business or unions. In a curious turn of events, the United States Supreme Court prevented California from passing such legislation because it ruled that the law violated the American constitution.
The basic principle included in the Quebec act, which this bill sort of tampers with, is that only voters can contribute. voters. Only someone who is eligible to vote can contribute to a political party.
I heard some bad words that hurt me and upset me. I told myself that these people do not understand what the public financing of political parties means. The financing of a party by a citizen involves public participation for the funds that the citizen cannot provide, given the costs of an election nowadays.
This public financing follows certain rules. It is proportionate to the number of votes obtained in the previous election. Of course, this will likely change, but the principle is that businesses, unions—albeit to a much lesser degree, and corporations must not finance political parties.
The bill before us sets the contributions made by corporations at the relatively low amount of $1,000. This amount must go through the ridings. I stress the fact, as other Bloc Quebecois members have done, that this amount is not high and could result in some slippage, thus making it necessary to have controls that should not be required. I think that these provisions should be eliminated.
We also find that the annual limit of $10,000 for individuals is high. Even though we are told that this amount represents the $3,000, adjusted for cost of living, that was included in the 1977 Quebec bill, the fact is that, in Quebec, the limit is still $3,000. We feel that $10,000 is a lot of money. I should also mention that we would like returning officers in ridings to be appointed by the chief electoral officer. This should be included in the same legislation.
That said, the important thing is that this bill finally signals public financing of political parties. It is regrettable that it was so long in coming, but I am pleased we have it now.
I would like to stress that the bill in Quebec was passed in 1977 by a party that was not a party of the mighty but a party financed by the party faithful, yet it transformed the practices of the Liberal Party of Quebec. That party was obliged to make adjustments and to go after its party faithful for funding thereafter, rather than the usual well bankrolled corporate contributors.
As a result, the bill transformed the Liberal Party of Quebec, making it into more of a party of the people, because it too had to be financed by those who supported and voted for it.
The focus of all this was democracy. Democracy must enable any citizen, rich or poor, to take part in political life and in the election of the candidate of his choice. This meant a pretty heavy impact on the entrepreneurs who used to—and I emphasize “used to”—turn up with $25,000 or $30,000 and could not help but have some influence.
I do not want to hear anyone say that there was no influence peddling, I will not believe that. Let no one dare tell me that there were no secret slush funds, I will not believe that either.
The bill would be a good one for all parties, including the Canadian Alliance, which would also have to continue to look to its donors, but only individual donors. Entrepreneurs may continue to contribute, but only as individuals. That is the idea.
The bill would, I am sure, bring about a healthier democracy, built on the very foundations of democracy, that is that citizens, voters, have equal rights, regardless of their financial situation.