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.