House of Commons Hansard #269 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was organizations.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Canada Summer Jobs ProgramBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Opposition Motion—Canada Summer Jobs ProgramBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Opposition Motion—Canada Summer Jobs ProgramBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred to Monday, March 19, at the end of the time provided for government orders.

Opposition Motion—Canada Summer Jobs ProgramBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Accordingly the recorded division is deferred until Monday, March 19, at the conclusion of government orders.

Opposition Motion—Canada Summer Jobs ProgramBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. in order to commence with private members' business.

Opposition Motion—Canada Summer Jobs ProgramBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Is that agreed?

Opposition Motion—Canada Summer Jobs ProgramBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Canada Summer Jobs ProgramBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 3, 2017, consideration of the motion that Bill C-364, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act (political financing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

When the House last considered this motion, the hon. member for Montcalm had five minutes remaining.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

5:15 p.m.

Québec debout

Luc Thériault Québec debout Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, the last time I spoke, I tried to convince my Liberal and Conservative colleagues of the merits of the bill introduced by my colleague from Terrebonne on political financing.

I would like to give an overview of this bill for the benefit of voters. This bill seeks to introduce or reintroduce per-vote party financing. This small measure would cost very little, benefit democracy, and produce a number of worthwhile results.

We have had several discussions and many questions in question period about the cash for access dynamic of political fundraising, or in other words, privileged access to the government and the Prime Minister. I am talking about private dinners that will now be advertised. People will be invited, and it will be announced that a private dinner will be held at the cost of $1,500 a person for those who can afford to attend and who have things to say to the Prime Minister about the interests of lobby groups. The Liberals think that this is a big step for democracy because they are now going to advertise these events.

At this moment, however, how many of the viewers watching this debate on television can afford to donate $1,500 to a political party, seeing as, unlike lobbies, they have no interests to advance by donating to the Prime Minister's riding of Papineau through a fundraiser being held in Vancouver? These people attended a $1,500-a-plate dinner and told the Prime Minister what they wanted, and the same day their bank was approved, poof, $70,000 magically found its way to the coffers of Papineau, 5,000 kilometres away. What a way to finance an election.

The mere suspicion and appearance of a kickback is enough to damage our democratic institutions and undermine public trust in democratic institutions.

When it was in opposition, this government said it wanted to restore the per-vote subsidy. Now that it holds the purse strings, it is backtracking under pressure from multiple lobbies. Right now, its coffers are full, as are the coffers of the Conservative Party. It is well known that power alternates between these two parties. They are two sides of the same coin. It comes as no surprise today to see these two parties joining forces to wipe out the per-vote subsidy.

This flies in the face of the Liberal government's apparently empty promise to reform the Canada Elections Act and introduce a fairer voting system, but it is not the first time the government has said one thing and done another. One of the reasons we wanted a fairer voting system was to give Canadians an opportunity to express a broader range of ideas in the House by giving smaller parties a voice and seats in the House and enabling them to participate in democratic debate. Since that did not happen, we think the least the government can do is encourage people to express their political views by providing per-vote funding.

Per-vote funding would enable voters to vote for what they believe in so that a vote for, say, the Green Party, which is a minority party in the House, would not be a total waste. It would give such minority parties a say in the democratic debate of a democratic society for four years. It would enable small parties to participate on a more level playing field in the democratic debate of a democratic society as expressed in an election campaign.

The government wants to backtrack on this. I am disgusted at the government's failure to keep yet another promise.

It is disgusting.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-364, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, introduced by the hon. member for Terrebonne.

Bill C-364 seeks to do two things. First, it seeks to re-establish the per-vote subsidy, which provides that after a federal election political parties receive taxpayer subsidies based upon the number of votes they received during the previous election. Second, it seeks to reduce the maximum amount an individual can contribute to a political party from $1,500 to $500.

I oppose Bill C-364 because I do not support the re-establishment of the per-vote subsidy, nor do I believe it makes sense or see any compelling reason for why the maximum limit should be reduced from $1,500 to $500.

The heart of this bill relates to re-establishing the per-vote subsidy, and I want to take a bit of time to talk about why it is I oppose the re-establishment of the per-vote subsidy. In that regard, it is helpful to provide some context in terms of how the per-vote subsidy came to be.

It came to be as part and parcel with political financing reforms introduced by the Chrétien government in 2003, whereby a $5,000 maximum cap was set in terms of contributions to political parties. That change in political financing laws was a step in the right direction, to the Chrétien government's credit. It is something we continued when the previous Conservative government reduced the maximum contribution amount and banned union and corporate donations altogether.

When the $5,000 cap was introduced, it constituted a monumental change in political financing laws in Canada. Indeed, prior to that, there were really no rules or limits. Unions and corporations could donate large sums of money to political parties. In that fundraising environment, it is no surprise that political parties often relied upon a smaller pool of donors who contributed large sums of money, whether it be from corporations, unions, or other wealthy individuals.

Then the rules changed, and changed very quickly, almost overnight. As a result, the per-vote subsidy was introduced to allow political parties to transition and acclimatize to the new rules respecting fundraising activities. It was never intended that the per-vote subsidy would be permanent; rather, it was intended to be an interim measure. It is precisely for that reason the previous Conservative government phased out the per-vote subsidy following the 2011 election.

There are proponents of re-establishing the per-vote subsidy, and they argue that it is a more fair and equitable way in which to finance political parties. I respectfully disagree with that assertion. I say it is an unfair way to finance political parties, starting with asking taxpayers to pick up and subsidize, out of sweat-soaked taxpayers' dollars, political parties. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that re-establishing the per-vote subsidy would cost taxpayers $45 million annually. I can think of a lot of better ways to use 45 million taxpayers' dollars than to subsidize political parties.

Moreover, I would submit that the per-vote subsidy is unfair in as much as the party that receives the largest share of the votes receives the largest subsidy. Why might that be a problem? Is it fair to ask taxpayers to continue to subsidize a political party that they may no longer support, that they may no longer agree with, having regard for the fact that there could be a significant shift in support between elections? I would say that is not fair.

In that regard, as a result, almost always there is a built-in advantage for governing parties over opposition parties. Again, I say that does not sound very fair. That does not sound very equitable. In addition, it provides a significant advantage to established political parties and a significant disadvantage to new parties. After all, a party that competed in a previous election would receive large amounts of taxpayer-subsidized funds, whereas a new party would receive nothing, if it was a new party that did not compete in the previous election.

There are many examples in Canadian history where political parties have emerged to go on to be very successful, whether it be the Reform Party or the Bloc Québécois, of which the member for Terrebonne was a member at least up until yesterday.

For all of those reasons, I would submit that the per-vote subsidy is not fair and is not equitable.

Proponents would go on to say that this bill would help take money out of politics, except that it does not take money out of politics because it provides that individuals can continue to contribute to political parties, as I believe they should. All it does is provide a whole new stream of revenue, courtesy of the taxpayer, to political parties.

Then there are proponents who would say that at least it would diminish the need for the Liberals to engage in their unethical pay-to-play, cash for access, $1,500 fundraisers. I say that we do not need to pass Bill C-364 for the Liberals to end cash for access cash. All that needs to happen is for the Prime Minister to follow his “Open and Accountable Government”. Do members remember that document? It was the code of conduct that the Prime Minister said would bind him, his cabinet ministers, and his parliamentary secretaries.

“Open and Accountable Government” provides that there should be no preferential access to government, and no perception of preferential access to government. Imagine that: the Prime Minister actually doing what he said, keeping his word to Canadians. I know for this Prime Minister, it is a truly novel concept.

For all of those reasons, while I believe this is a well-intentioned bill, I cannot support it.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to talk about this bill and the discussions that I have had about political financing, especially with regard to Quebec.

I would like to explain my particular situation in my riding, because it is especially important for understanding this matter. When I became an MP, I was fortunate that my provincial representative was an excellent politician who cared about people. We should recognize the excellent work done by others, no matter the party they represent. I have been fortunate to have had François Gendron as my MLA for my entire life. He recently announced that he will be retiring after serving in the National Assembly for 40 years. He deserves our congratulations.

This man is a walking encyclopedia. He knows about everything that has happened in provincial politics over the past 40 years. He was elected in 1976, when René Lévesque first formed a government, and has served ever since. I was able to talk to him and to understand everything that happened, where we started out, and where we are now.

Quebec went through a crisis in terms of political financing. The Charbonneau commission revealed the extent of the collusion and the organized donation systems. This led to some soul searching in Quebec about what to do. Quebec decided to limit donations to $100 per person, with no tax credit, and to fund parties with subsidies based on votes. After every general election in Quebec, each party receives a subsidy based on the number of votes obtained, and this is calculated according to a specific formula. This lets small parties obtain subsidies to support their operations based on the popular support they receive.

The smaller parties that are particularly focused on defending the most vulnerable still manage to do their work. Obviously, when people try to defend the most vulnerable, something that is very dear to me, it is clear that those people are rarely in a financial position to make donations to show their appreciation for the MP's work and help the MP get reelected because they know that the MP is truly devoted to them. Those people do not have the financial capacity for that and I would never ask them for anything. I know that they are not in a financial position for that.

When parties receive funding based on the number of votes that they get, people know that when they vote, they are making their small contribution to help the party continue its work.

In our federal system, where we have completely eliminated the per-vote contribution to parties, people do not see how they can tangibly help the members or the parties. That was a real loss. The government says that it should not be up to taxpayers to pay for the political parties. That is not true because that is happening now.

When the Prime Minister gets a $1,500 donation, the millionaire who made it gets $650 in tax credits. The existing tax credit system makes is so that I, the taxpayer, am paying to finance the Liberal Party. It is inaccurate to say that, under the current system, all taxpayers are not funding political parties. They are. However, the problem is that it is the wealthiest people who decide where all taxpayers' money goes. Low-income Canadians get a non-refundable tax credit. In other words, they do not get a cent.

Consider the example of my husband, who has a relatively low income. We have chosen to do things differently. He is a stay-at-home dad. He does not get anything back in return when he makes a contribution to my riding association to help me continue my work. He pays it entirely out of his pocket.

He gets absolutely nothing towards his tax return, because his income is too low. Other non-refundable tax credits exist that make it possible for him to look for more, so it does him absolutely no good. He does not get any more money back.

The poorest people who make political donations do not get a tax credit. They do not see any of that money again. Only wealthy people get some of it back in a tax refund. Ultimately, it is the wealthiest people who make political donations who decide how the political parties are financed. It is not all taxpayers who decide. At least when contributions are made based on the number of votes received, that means all taxpayers, in theory, the ones who vote, are deciding how the money is distributed based on people's political convictions. My colleague's bill deserves to be sent to committee for further study.

There are obviously financial considerations. We will have to look into this to find the best formula. The amount per vote or the maximum donation amount may need to be changed.

I am sure that my colleague is prepared to hear different scenarios and calculations in committee. If the committee determines that it would be better to move forward with a maximum donation of $100, with no tax rebate, and a higher per-vote contribution, my colleague will be open to that.

There are a variety of possible formulas based on the main principle, but in order to choose the right one, we will need to bring in an expert to go over our options. We must support the bill so that it can be sent to committee.

The bill is currently at second reading. The question now is whether we support the principle of fairer political financing. Each member here must be able to rise and say that he or she supports the principle, that it is an important issue, and that we must look at all of the options.

If the committee hears different funding options and determines that none of them are any good, it will do what needs to be done and decide not to pursue further study. If the bill does not go to committee, we cannot hear from these experts, who can provide potential scenarios and provide figures. This bill must go further, so that we can get an idea of what it all means.

That has a considerable impact on the MP's work. I have talked to MPs who worked under the former and current system in Quebec. They say that this system works very well and that they are not spending all their time at fundraising activities. They can truly focus on politics and doing their work as MPs. When MPs are running left and right to raise funds, they are not doing non-partisan work. They have more contact with people who are associated with them, whereas when they can spend more time on politics they are available to everyone and not just those who are affiliated with their political party.

I was elected in Abitibi—Témiscamingue to help everyone in that riding, whether they are separatists or federalists. To me, the person who enters my office is above all someone who deserves to receive services, deserves for me to be there for them. It does not matter if they voted for me or not, the important thing is for me to work for them. Even though I try to limit the impact this might have on my work as an MP, I would really like to be better able to do the work of a neutral MP, instead of having to go from here to there to raise funds.

It would be much more effective if we could really address the question and study the bill in committee. We could look at whether this truly is a fairer solution that will help prevent the kinds of abuses we saw with the Prime Minister's private dinners and with millionaires prepared to pay $1,500 to meet him. I sincerely doubt that they would have paid to meet just any backbench Liberal MP. We all know that these people would never have paid $1,500 to meet the member from the back of the room whose name they probably do not even know.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

5:40 p.m.

Halifax Nova Scotia

Liberal

Andy Fillmore LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-364, introduced by the member for Terrebonne.

This private member's bill, Bill C-364, would amend Canada's Elections Act and Income Tax Act in the following ways.

First, it would substantially lower the contribution limits to political entities. For example, it would reduce the maximum annual contribution that individuals could make to each registered political party from $1,550 down to $500, which is a reduction of more than two-thirds, and would make similar reductions for other political entities, such as candidates and leadership contestants.

Further, it would reinstate the quarterly allowance to political parties. This allowance was introduced initially in 2004 and then phased out in 2015. Finally, it would amend the Income Tax Act to increase the tax credit benefit for those contributing more than $750.

I would like to say that while I appreciate the member for Terrebonne's efforts to improve political financing in Canada, I also want to flag that there are elements of the bill that are cause for concern. First, this legislation is expensive. In fact, the parliamentary budget office website states with respect to the bill:

PBO estimates that, in total, the cost to the federal government will be $45.2 million in 2018, increasing to $46.2 million in 2021. The reintroduction of a quarterly allowance, which is paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to registered political parties, represents the overwhelming majority of the cost.

However, this is a time when our government is focusing federal resources on top priority issues like affordable housing, climate action, pharmacare, and help for the middle class and those working hard to join it. These are just a few examples of the work we are embarking on as a result of listening to the concerns of Canadians.

Our government knows that Canadians have good reason to be proud of our democracy. We will always have more work to do to make it even better, and we are going about that work. However, we cannot forget that there are already considerable supports existing in the system, specifically generous tax credits for financial contributors. Candidates and parties are also reimbursed for, or rebated, a significant portion of their campaign expenses from Elections Canada.

The tax credit for donations in 2015 cost the treasury an estimated $55 million. After the 2015 election, $60.7 million was reimbursed to parties and another $42.7 million went to the official agents for candidates' campaigns, for a total cost to Canadians of $158 million. Had Bill C-364 been in place in 2015, the total cost over the subsequent four years would have been $278 million, an increase of 76% over the actual costs. That number does not even include other subsidies contained in the Canada Elections Act, such as the provision of broadcasting time to registered parties.

Another financial concern is that this legislation would give larger tax breaks to those contributing more than $750. The Department of Finance predicts that this could result in a decline in federal revenues by up to $2 million in years when there is a leadership contest under way. I would also argue that this would be a regressive tax change. It would allow wealthier Canadians to receive a larger benefit for their donations.

The bill also removes the ceiling on what could be claimed under its provisions. By extension, this would be most beneficial to the wealthiest Canadians. Yet another concern is that this bill would drop contribution limits to leadership contestants from $1,550 to $1,000.

As members know, 2017 was the 35th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We all know that Canadians deeply value our charter, and we know it is a model for new democracies around the world. Section 3 of the charter guarantees every eligible Canadian citizen the right to vote and to run in an election. Section 2, which includes the freedoms of association and expression, gives Canadian citizens and permanent residents the right to donate to a party. This right is of course subject to reasonable limitations.

Political parties are a necessary and important part of our democratic process. They unite people who come from different geographic regions. They unite people who have different perspectives. Parties help to mobilize citizens around ideas they cherish. As former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci said, “Political parties provide individual citizens with an opportunity to express an opinion on the policy and functioning of government.”

Canadians participate in our democracy not just by voting or donating to a party. They can also become politically active as a party volunteer. However, many Canadians do not have either the time or desire to support parties in that way, so for some, donating is how they choose to have their voices heard.

This is one of the big reasons why our government believes strongly in maintaining a balanced, open, and transparent political financing system. Be assured that we are continuing to review the rules for political financing to ensure that Canada has a balanced approach.

Another aspect of political fundraising that our government has been focused on is Bill C-50, which has recently passed third reading in the House of Commons, and is now being deliberated in the Senate. Bill C-50 would ensure that any fundraising activity, which costs more than $200, where a cabinet minister, including the Prime Minister are present, or a party leader or a leadership contestant is in attendance, must be reported five days in advance on the party's website, and the guest list must be disclosed publicly. This kind of reporting will ensure that Canadians have a more open and transparent fundraising system.

What is also interesting about Bill C-50 is that both Conservative Party members, and several newly independent members of this House, voted against this legislation, which, as I mentioned, would increase transparency in our political system. It is important to note that this also includes the member for Terrebonne, whose name is on the very bill we are now debating. He too voted against this important legislation improving our political system for Canadians.

The member for Terrebonne chose to bring Bill C-364 forward to the House. This bill would benefit wealthier donors by increasing their tax credits. As well, he and his colleagues voted against bringing greater transparency to fundraisers. These actions would move our democracy backward, not forward.

In addition to Bill C-50, the Minister of Democratic Institutions is also moving our democracy forward by ensuring more, and not fewer Canadians, have access to voting with as few barriers as possible. This is done through repealing elements of the previous government's so-called Fair Elections Act. We are also moving our democracy forward by focusing on protecting our democratic institutions from foreign influence in our elections.

In partnership with the Communications Security Establishment, we released a first-of-its-kind in the world report on cyber threats to our democracy. As technology changes and evolves, so must our efforts to defend from those wishing to disrupt our Canadian democracy.

To further move our democracy forward, the Prime Minister tasked the Minister of Democratic Institutions to examine and present options for a commission or commissioner to organize leaders' debates during federal elections. In support of that, the minister and I were happy to participate in cross-Canada meetings with stakeholders from the broadcast media, new media, civil society, and academia to listen to their views on this important issue.

Our government is focused on moving forward and not backward. We are focused on strengthening our democratic institutions. We are focused on matters that unite Canadians, and not on those that divide Canadians. For this reason, the government cannot support Bill C-364.

We must ensure that the conditions are fair for political parties, and at the same time recognize that Canadians have a democratic right to actively participate in their democracy by means of reasonable contributions.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to say that I feel both privileged and embarrassed to speak to this bill.

I am embarrassed that such an important bill dealing with the very foundations of our democracy had to be introduced as a private member's bill, for which there is a limited amount of debate. There are few hours of debate, since there is no period for questions. We get just two hours of debate on such fundamental issues. Although my colleague from Terrebonne has done excellent work, I wish these issues would have been addressed by the government and that we would have had an adequate amount of time to debate them.

My colleagues have likely heard the saying that there is no stopping progress. That implies that things are always moving forward.

My colleagues have likely heard the saying that there is no stopping progress. That implies that things are always moving forward. However, I have to say that I agree with my wise colleague from Terrebonne here. When it comes to election financing, the best thing to do to move forward would likely be to take a step back, properly analyze the situation, and determine the basic principles that we want to put in place to ensure that our political financing system is fair and to prevent money from becoming the sinews of war and the driving force in decision making.

I would like to give a bit of background on the progression of our election financing act in order to see where we went wrong. Here are a few of the highlights. In 1874, there were no spending limits, but any expenditures had to be reported. In 1908, businesses were prohibited from contributing to election campaigns. That was a step in the right direction. In 1908, we had already recognized that companies had a lot more money than voters and could use that money to disproportionately influence the government's decisions.

In 1920, it became mandatory for candidates to reveal the name of donors and the amounts they contributed. That was good. There were no more secrets. The process was becoming more open. In 1974, the Election Expenses Act was passed. It required parties to limit their election spending and report the sources of the donations they received. Under the act, parties also became eligible to be reimbursed for some of their expenses. That is when the idea of public funding first came into play. If every party is reimbursed by the government for some of its election spending, then it is like each of us is contributing to the campaign of the others. That shows that public financing is important, because democracy comes at a cost. We often say that democracy is too important to let others take care of it.

Once again, unfortunately, just a few dozen MPs will be able to speak to this bill unless the majority of members of the House, and I really do not see why it could not be all members, agree to support this bill at second reading. That would allow us to properly study in committee not just the bill but also ways to improve it if stakeholders had suggestions.

I will continue with the history lesson. In 2002, measures were reintroduced to limit third-party spending, which, especially when it comes to advertising, can have a tremendous influence on an election result. I am going quickly because 10 minutes is really not enough time to cover a topic. In 2003, strict rules for the transparency of party financing were implemented, and parties were required to submit a detailed report containing the names and addresses of all donors every year. In return, a per vote subsidy was introduced. At the time, it was $1.75, adjusted for inflation. Private donations were capped at $5,000 and up to 75% was tax deductible. Once again, we are talking about people like you and me, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that I am naturally more likely to support and donate to the campaigns of my NDP colleagues than to those of another party. However, when we as a government grant tax breaks to those who make contributions to political parties, my taxes are part of the reimbursement I am also offering them. That in itself is problematic. The parties get reimbursed for 50% of their election expenses.

In 2008, as we should all remember well, since it was just a short time ago, Mr. Harper had scarcely been elected when he announced that he would soon be abolishing this subsidy. This was a catastrophe. It signalled a move towards the U.S. system. Not that I am saying we are at that point, but we are heading in that direction. Money is everything in that system, and the wealthy automatically have more influence than people with a middle-class income—though we still do not know exactly what a middle-class income is—not to mention the poorest members of American society. It is utter nonsense, because the fundamental principle of democracy is one person, one vote, not one rich person influencing the votes of a certain number of people. It is one person, one vote, and each person's vote must matter equally.

Following that logic, maybe elections should be 100% publicly funded. Some people seem to think that Canadians may be proud of their democracy but are unable to understand that a democratic system like ours costs money. Divide that cost among the entire population and it is lower than if one person has to pay for it all, and most importantly, it is divided evenly in accordance with our tax rules. That is clearly not where the government went in recent years, which has had a definite influence on representation in the House.

It may be reasonable to think that parties that have been around longer have a leg up on start-up parties. I am not saying that a longer history is a good thing. There is a difference. When any party, no matter how small, gets a percentage of the popular vote but is not present in the House of Commons, that means there are two problems. One, our electoral system is flawed, and two, financing does not play a big enough role. If I understand my colleague from Terrebonne correctly, his bill would not only make political donations less influential but also restore per-vote funding.

If I choose to support a new party that has new ideas and wants to be heard, and some Canadians share its ideas, how can I move forward in the democratic system if, because of the electoral system, my vote is not recognized because this government decided to snub proportional representation when it realized that that would not serve its interests, and on top of that, the funding system does not allow me to support my party?

I have often used the example of a candidate from the Bloc Québécois or Parti Québécois who runs in Westmount, in Montreal. Right off the bat, his chances of being elected are pretty low, but he can still contribute to his party's agenda knowing that every vote he does get will help his party a little bit. This is an excellent idea, and we need to bring this back as soon as possible.

Time is running out and I will not have enough to share all of my ideas. We need to find the best way to increase citizen engagement as much as possible based on our electoral system and the associated political financing system.

In that sense, the bill introduced by my colleague from Terrebonne is a step in the right direction. I am pleased to support it and I hope to have the opportunity to debate it in committee.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Québec debout

Gabriel Ste-Marie Québec debout Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise this afternoon to speak to the bill introduced by my colleague from Terrebonne. It is a noble bill that has to do with political party financing.

Our role here is to faithfully represent the public and our ridings. Are there some people who have more rights than others in a democracy? No. The basic principle, the fundamental principle, is that everyone has an equal voice. Unfortunately, a correlation has been observed between political party financing and the results the parties obtain. The system becomes distorted, and money wields greater influence.

The wealthiest people can decide to finance political parties, those able to form government in particular, in other words, the two main parties. This has happened in recent months and years, where people were given access to power at fundraising dinners or galas for $1,500. Obviously, those donors expected something in return. That approach skews our democracy; it hijacks it. Under that type of system, those with more money have a greater say.

My colleague is suggesting that we reduce this type of financing and replace it with public funding. This bill is about restoring public funding, as my colleague from Trois-Rivières pointed out in his speech. We had this type of funding before, but it was abolished under the Harper regime.

Public funding was brought in under Jean Chrétien in response to the sponsorship scandal. Friends of the party were providing financing, and they then got a kickback in the form of contracts. That was the sponsorship scandal. Mr. Chrétien figured that he needed to save face, so he made the process a little more democratic. This is unfortunately how things sometimes work in our society. It takes a scandal for us to implement a more progressive measure or to improve our democracy.

My colleague is proposing that we bring back the principle of per-vote funding for existing parties. This is a wonderful principle. It is not the end of the world, nor is it a cure-all, but it would help get us back on track.

As my colleague from Trois-Rivières and my other colleagues were saying, we are looking at the principle. In the House, no one can justify voting against this bill at second reading because of the details. We are all open to the idea of improving the bill in committee, as we have said repeatedly during today's debate. That is the principle.

Our role as legislators is to pass good laws that improve democracy and reflect the desires of the people we represent. That is what we are talking about, and that is what we should aspire to. I cannot imagine anyone voting against this principle in good conscience today. If any Conservatives or Liberals vote against this bill, I can only deduce that they are doing it with an eye to the next election. We condemn cynicism in politics and the mediocre levels of trust in politicians. If any members vote against this bill on the pretext of having small details debated and improved in committee, I would not trust those members because they would have shown that what matters to them most is power. Anyone who votes against this bill is showing that all they care about is winning the next election and making sure their party stays strong thanks to financial contributions from the rich and powerful.

Tax havens are a good example. In their fine speeches, the Liberals say they are against them. The minister says the net is tightening, but in reality, nothing concrete is being done. The Liberals continue to legalize more and more tax havens. Does that really benefit the middle class and those working hard to join it, as the Liberals say? Not in the least.

If the business world and the banks on Bay Street in Toronto tell their friends to keep doing what they are doing and promise that in exchange, business people will get together and keep giving them $1,500, that does not work.

That is not democracy. That is the opposite of democracy. It is financial dictatorship and that needs to change.

My colleague introduced a bill that is based on a meaningful principle and that represents a step in the right direction. In my opinion, this is a fundamental democratic principle. Everyone should be in favour of it. I can only assume that anyone who opposes it is acting in bad faith.

I would like to close by saying that we have spoken out against the $1,500 dinners and against the Prime Minister accepting donations from people from Toronto and Vancouver and authorizing a bank for their cultural community in exchange for those donations. We spoke out against that. That is not the kind of system that we want. We want more objective principles.

My colleagues and I are currently part of a group of independent parliamentarians. If this bill were to be passed tomorrow, we would not get a penny as a result. We are rising today on a matter of principle because we believe in a better democracy. We are here to defend values, not just personal interests, which seems to be the case for my colleagues opposite and my colleagues on this side. I encourage everyone to vote for my colleague's bill. As I said, we are at the principle stage. Improvements will be made to the bill in committee.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for Terrebonne for his right of reply.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

Québec debout

Michel Boudrias Québec debout Terrebonne, QC

I suppose it is more of a right to wrap it up, Mr. Speaker.

Does anyone know what percentage of Canadians support and have confidence in politicians and their promises? It is 3%. I am sure everyone will agree that the people are not exactly giving us top marks. There is definitely room for improvement when it comes to the bonds of trust between us and our constituents. We owe it to them to do better, that is for sure. People are expressing dissatisfaction to an alarming degree and are constantly saying that politicians are sellouts and power can be bought.

Now more than ever, we must ensure that we are beyond reproach, squeaky clean. That is why I am asking my colleagues to do everything they can to separate us as politicians from any appearance of conflict of interest related to money. I have heard some very good arguments in favour of that. We will be voting on the bill I had the honour of introducing, Bill C-364. The bill would restore public per-vote funding for all parties that receive at least 2% of the votes in an election, so it only applies to the serious ones.

However, the maximum amount for donations that can be collected by parties would be reduced from $1,500 per person to a reasonable $500. I am proud to introduce this bill because it serves the interests of the people who vote for me and for my colleagues. To be democratic is to put shared interests before personal interests. That is what I am asking some of my colleagues to do, but not all because some have already seen reason. I am asking those who are still having difficulty seeing the light. I am referring to the two major parties that take turns governing.

Public funding is fundamentally democratic. For every vote received, parties get a small amount of money to finance their activities. We are talking about just under $2 a year, but this makes all the difference. Providing just under $2 in stable and predictable funding for all political parties, from the largest to the smallest, tells people that, yes, it makes a difference when they vote for the party of their choice, no matter the polls and the political landscape of their riding. It tells people that their vote is added to the votes of all those who share their ideals, enabling the party of their choice to operate between election campaigns. It ensures that public debate is vigorous by allowing a plurality of votes and points of view. It also reduces that blight on democracy that is strategic voting, protest voting, or voting for the least objectionable candidate.

Let us work together to restore public funding for political parties. Let us restore it and finally put an end to the deplorable era of cash for access. Let us forget the $1,500-a-head cocktail receptions, where those who can afford it pay for privileged access to decision-makers. We are all members of Parliament, and we all know that politics involves costs. That is a part of politics. We all need to campaign, pay for our signs and offices, and buy our volunteers coffee now and then. We are not trying to take away the right of citizens to contribute financially to a party. We encourage people to donate if they can and want to.

Most families in Terrebonne, the riding I have the honour to represent, do not have $1,500 to spend on meetings with politicians. I would go so far as to say that if families in my area had $1,500 to spare, they would have no trouble thinking of all kinds of smart, sensible things to spend it on. They certainly would not spend it on lunch with a politician. Nor would I, for that matter. That kind of investment is made by people who have personal interests to promote, not by ordinary citizens.

I think the time has come to separate private interests from our democracy. In a way, what this bill does is nationalize our democracy, making sure that it works for all Quebeckers and all Canadians. Let's do the right thing together. Let's nationalize our democracy once and for all, and let's give the power back to the people.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada Elections ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 21, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.