Joe McGuire

[Canada Elections Act, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words on Bill C-24 in this stage of debate. I believe the bill was inevitable in our Canadian political experience. The process has been going on for quite some time and we could say that this is a bill whose time has come. This is probably one of the final stages of the public financing of elections in Canada.

The people of Canada approve of the bill. They approve moving the financing of Canadian elections from the private sector to the public sector. The people of Canada approve the principle of the bill and they approve the process that has been put in place in the House of Commons for this to occur.

With Bill C-24, we will have a clear, transparent and fair process to underwrite the cost of elections. The general public realizes this and fully endorses the transparency of this method of election financing.

To speak on Motion No. 11, the mandatory review of this bill after the next election is necessary because there are always things that we forgot. When we changed the enumeration process in elections, there were a lot of changes that had to be made afterward. That was a learning experience and I anticipate there will be some wrinkles in this bill which we have not thought of either.

The proposed motion will require a mandatory committee review and the bill will bring about important changes to the way political financing occurs. This is a very important reform that will have a significant impact on our political system. The new rules governing political contributions are essential to ensure that the system of political contributions is fully transparent at all levels and to remove any concerns or perception of undue influence by corporations, large donors or unions.

To achieve this purpose, the bill proposes comprehensive rules governing the financing of nomination contests, candidates, election district associations, registered parties, including provincial and territorial divisions of registered parties, as well as leadership contests.

The proposed bill provides for the reporting of contributions made to all political participants, including quarterly reports of contributions made to registered political parties, a measure that was introduced following suggestions in committee. It also provides for a regime where contributions are generally reserved to individuals up to a limit of $5,000 while at the same time allowing for more limited corporate and union contributions at the local level.

As a result of these new restrictions imposed by the bill on political contributions, a number of measures are proposed to ensure that the new regime is revenue neutral for political parties.

Let me simply review the most significant of these measures. The reimbursement of election expenses for registered parties would be increased from 22.5% to 50% with a one time reimbursement of 60% for the next election to assist parties as a transitional measure.

The threshold for candidates to qualify for the reimbursement of part of their election expenses would be lowered from 15% at present to 10%. The rate of reimbursement of the election expenses of candidates would increase by 50% to 60%, and the amendments to the Income Tax Act would double the amount of an individual's political contributions that is eligible for a 75% tax credit from $200 to $400. All other brackets of tax credit would be adjusted accordingly.

The proposed legislation will also introduce an annual allowance for registered parties of $1.75 per vote received. In this way the amount of public money given to a party under the allowance will be determined directly by Canadian electors. There will be in other words a direct link between a citizen's vote and the portion of his or her income tax that will be used in support of a democratic system. This may be a harbinger of proportional representation in our House of Commons but that is another debate.

The allowance of $1.75 per vote would be indexed to allow for inflation. Exceptionally, as a transitional measure, parties would receive the 2004 allowance in a lump sum as soon as practical after the coming into force of the bill, instead of quarterly as will be the case afterwards.

It is fair to say that the public financing provisions in the bill, and in particular the public allowance, are the provisions that have generated the most discussion here in the House of Commons.

Much has been said about the importance of ensuring adequate funding for political parties, given the key functions that they perform in a democratic system such as ours. Political parties serve to mobilize the electorate, provide an avenue for the representation of groups and articulation of their interests in concrete party policy proposals and their electoral platforms.

Strong parties and party organizations are critical to a healthy and dynamic democracy. If parties are not adequately funded, it is our entire electoral democracy that will be impoverished.

It must be remembered that political parties also play a fundamental role by providing a link between the state and its citizenry. They are essential structures for individual participation in our system of democratic governance. Providing basic funding for political parties allows competing political organizations to develop their platforms and programs. It allows them to conduct research and to develop policy options that citizens will then vote upon.

Bill C-24, by addressing on the one hand the concerns with the undue influence of corporations, as well as large individual donors and on the other hand, ensuring that parties have the necessary financial resources to perform their important function, will result in a healthier and more dynamic democracy.

By regulating the financial resources that contributors may provide to parties, in combination with public funding, as is being proposed in the bill, we can ensure that a level playing field is created for all participants.

Finally, we must recognize the enormous cost of running a political party in a modern democracy. Everyone in this House is certainly aware that the costs of running an effective party organization are rising, and this is a fact that was certainly made clear by party presidents who appeared before committee during the public hearings.

Particularly over the past few decades, parties have been faced with increasing costs of technology and the impact of media on party politics. It has been increasingly costly to maintain the necessary staff and institutionalized expertise that parties require to remain up to date on a wide range of issues and policy sectors.

The amendment to add polling to the definition of eligible expenditures is certainly a reflection of the modern cost of maintaining a political party. I do not believe there is any party that does not poll before, during and after elections, and this is a huge cost.

In addition, it must be recognized that the funding provided to parties to date, while beneficial, has had the shortcoming of kicking in after an election. As we are all aware, the functions of a party do not begin and end with an election. They are ongoing and that is why the public allowance is so essential to these reforms.

As an added benefit, the public allowance would be based on the number of votes received in the previous election. If a member has no public support, then there is no public financing. This should result in the encouragement of a greater connection between Canadians and parties. At the same time, we must not forget that there will be a need for parties to raise private funds from individuals, and this will also encourage them to maintain a vibrant connection with individual Canadians.

In conclusion, there are many important reasons for the public financing of political parties. Public financing contributes to a level playing field and an equality of opportunity and electoral competitiveness. It also allows parties to compete effectively regardless of the socio-economic condition of their supporters.

Public funding strengthens the autonomy of parties, reduces the perception of some groups that have undue influence and enhances financial transparency.

Public funding also provides parties with resources that are essential for democratic activities. There are at least equally important reasons for the measures dealing with the limits on contributions and the rules governing transparency.

Together these different rules will have a profound effect on our system of political financing but will in the short and long term be good for Canada.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Victory in Europe Day, May 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, today is VE Day, Victory in Europe Day, which marks the 58th anniversary of the liberation of Europe.

On this historic occasion, Canadians from sea to sea to sea will be joining their European counterparts in remembering those who served and made the ultimate sacrifice to defend liberty.

Close to one million Canadian men and women volunteered to fight for their country in its time of greatest need. By the end of this horrific conflict more than 45,000 Canadians had given their lives and up to 55,000 were wounded. Our military men and women were and are second to none, no matter what the conflict.

Today, we also pay tribute not only to those who served in Europe, but to those Canadians from all walks of life who contributed in a significant way to the war effort. Whether in factories, schools or at home, these Canadians toiled relentlessly to support their loved ones.

Their legacy lies in their courage and inexorable will to defend the values and freedoms which we enjoy today. Lest we forget.

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I find that a peculiar comment coming from a member of the Alliance because it encourages the Americans at every opportunity.

In its efforts to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board, that party is encouraging the Americans to take the wheat board to various trade tribunals in order to destroy it. The wheat board has been an integral part of the development of western Canada for decades. It has been in place for a reason and that reason has not been removed.

To this point in time, the wheat board has been investigated about seven or eight times, and each time it has been found to be a fair trader. With the encouragement of the Alliance, the Americans are trying to bring down one of the most important organizations in western Canada.

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member goes back in history, it was not just this Liberal Party, or the Liberal Party of Canada at the time who refused membership to the OAS. Many Conservative governments also refused. It was not until the early 90s that we joined the organization. However, once we joined the organization we became full and active partners. It is a move that is much appreciated by a lot of other countries outside the United States that look to Canada for support and direction.

On the comment that we have lost trade with the United States and that relations are not exactly what they should be, we did not have to stay out of a war for that to happen. Over the years there were lots of times that our trade with the United States had been impaired.

As far as my province is concerned, twice in the past seven or eight years, just on the potato virus and the PVY-n virus, our exports have been impaired. The U.S. is our largest consumer of potatoes, as is the case with the member's province. He should know that because a lot of his potato products were also barred from going to the United States. The U.S. was bitter and we were bitter toward it for blocking our trade in this particular commodity. It applied a great number of non-tariff barriers to our free flow of trade and even though we were not pleased we worked through it. Eventually our trade renewed and it progressed back and forth across the border as usual.

This will also happen with this little blip in our economic relations with the United States. It might take a little time, but I do not see any significant harm being done to our trade. It is mutually beneficial for both the United States and Canada that business continue as usual.

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord.

We are at an important point in relations between Canada and the United States. Even before the war began, journalists, academics and the business community were already involved in a lively and inspired debate over the future of our bilateral relations. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade had released a major report called “Partners in North America: Advancing Canada's Relations with the United States and Mexico”.

The events of recent days have led us to realize how much our interests are interlinked and how much our relations are integrated and interdependent. There is no relationship more important to Canada than our relationship with the United States.

We all know how things stand. Thanks to the North American Free Trade Agreement, our trade with the United States more than doubled between 1989 and 2002, and it is now at a level of around $2 billion each day. Our bilateral and economic relations with our southern neighbours support millions of jobs in both countries and impact directly on the lives of most Canadians and many Americans.

We recognize that Canada's decision to refrain from participating in the military campaign in Iraq has disappointed our American friends. We sought to achieve a consensus at the United Nations Security Council but unfortunately that was not possible. It is not the first time and probably not the last that Canada and the United States have taken different approaches to a specific issue, especially in the area of foreign policy.

Canada has two major assets to help us through this period where our opinions diverge in the area of foreign policy with our closest friend and neighbour. First, we have excellent personal relations with the Americans at every level and in all sectors, and second, we share a single vision of North American security and prosperity. We share common values and principles. We have developed strong ties of friendship over the years and we agree that our future depends above all on the North America we are building together.

We must maintain and develop the profound links that exist between all parts of our societies, as well as with our counterparts in the U.S. government. I encourage members of Parliament as well as our business people and other Canadian partners to emphasize once again to their American contacts the strength of our friendship and relations, and to point out Canada's positive contributions to North American security and prosperity.

We share a common vision of North America's security and prosperity. Concerning continental security, we share the defence of North American air space with the Americans through Norad, the North American Aerospace Defence Command. We are in the Organization of American States. We have numerous bilateral military agreements with the Americans and of course, we are partners in NATO.

Canada has taken measures jointly with the United States to secure the safety of our continent. We have provided $5 billion in new security spending, more on a per capita basis than the United States. We have tightened up our laws on refugees, immigration and funding of terrorist activities.

Abroad we continue to support the anti-terrorism campaign. In Afghanistan, we had the fourth largest military contingent in a coalition against terrorism in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. A naval force is still patrolling the Arabian Sea along with our land force commitments in Bosnia and Kosovo.

In cooperation with the United States, we have taken energetic steps to guarantee border security while ensuring that the border remains open for the trade that is vital for the prosperity of our two countries.

As members know, the Deputy Prime Minister and homeland security Secretary Ridge signed a smart border accord in December 2001 to implement a dynamic 30 point action plan containing measures to fast-track pre-screened goods and travellers, assign customs personnel to each other's key ports, and share information on high risk travellers. With the higher level of threat to the United States, the border is currently experiencing its first real tests and all the indications are that this cooperation is paying off.

Thanks to NAFTA we have become a strong, secure partner in the energy field. Few people realize that Canada is the largest supplier of petroleum products to the United States, even larger than Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. In fact, Canada supplies 17% of the imported crude and refined oil products imported by the United States. We supply 100% of its electricity imports and 94% of its natural gas imports.

Canada has succeeded in taking the lead and positioning itself well by reaping tremendous trade benefits, expanding the North American energy market, ensuring that our common border operates in a smart, effective way, and enhancing our cooperation for the defence of the continent.

This is a position I support and that all members of the government fully support. I am an eternal optimist. I am convinced that our strong relations with the United States will overcome this challenging time. We have seen no serious problems in trade patterns. As Canadians, we must remain confident and maintain our excellent personal links. We must remain confident that we will get through the challenge we are currently facing.

As a member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, in particular Prince Edward Island, we have shared hundreds of thousands of immigrants with the United States over the years since Confederation. For decades after Confederation our people found work and prosperity in the American states, as have their descendants who are now spread all over the United States from Florida to California. For over 150 years, fish, potatoes, lumber and now technology have found consumers in the United States. Maine sometimes gets upset with potato trucks driving down the highway to New England, but that happens in competition and usually it happens during an American election year.

Our ties are strong and unbreakable between our two countries and they will only get stronger as our contribution to one another becomes better known by both sides of the border.

[Tourism, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to bring attention to the significant impact the tourism industry has on the Canadian economy.

Last year tourism spending totalled more than $54 billion. Thanks to more than $16 billion of foreign spending, tourism is Canada's fourth largest export industry. The tourism industry employs more than 580,000 Canadians directly. In fact from a government perspective, the tourism industry produces an estimated revenue of almost $17 billion in taxes, of which more than $9 billion goes to the federal government.

Today the Tourism Industry Association of Canada is hosting its annual Talking Tourism Symposium with tourism representatives from coast to coast to coast coming to Ottawa to discuss this dynamic industry.

As a member of Parliament from P.E.I. where tourism is one of our most important industries, I would like to welcome Don Cudmore, executive director of the Tourism Industry Association of P.E.I., and the other representatives of the tourism sector to Ottawa. I encourage them to keep up their great work.

[Canada Pension Plan, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I recently received a petition from 600 constituents in regard to old age pensions. These petitions were spearheaded by the work of Mrs. Adeline Butler.

I have heard too many stories of senior citizens who are living in poverty in this country. With so many of our valued elderly citizens living with restricted incomes, it is increasingly difficult for them to stretch their old age pensions far enough to pay for day to day expenses and also afford the necessary medical treatments that often become increasingly necessary as we age.

Given the catastrophic cost of certain drugs, many of our seniors find themselves caught between paying $3,000 for pharmaceuticals to take care of their health and being able to buy basic groceries. This is a dilemma no one should have to face.

To this end, I support a $40 per month immediate increase in the old age supplementary cheque for seniors. I believe it is our government's responsibility to be more supportive in our financial assistance to seniors.

[Canada Winter Games, March 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a young lady in my riding recently showed the nation what constitutes true sportsmanship during the 2002 Canada Winter Games in Campbellton-Bathurst, New Brunswick.

When Amanda Bulman from Miscouche, P.E.I. saw an athlete from Saskatchewan lying unconscious at the bottom of a large hill, she sacrificed her own finish in the race by going in search of help and waiting there until help arrived and successful treatment was administered. To honour this young lady's action, she was awarded with the highest honour of the games, the President's Pin.

Furthermore, P.E.I.'s athletes brought home eight medals this year which was the most won by the province ever in a single games. Matthew Coe, Alicia Wilbert, Tyler Marchbank, Mitzi Mitchell, Frankie Gallison, Christine Wilbert, Darcy McKenna and Matthew Lemon all won awards.

Team P.E.I. was awarded the Jack Pelech Award for combining competitive performance, sportsmanship, fair play and friendship.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating these wonderful athletes. Islanders should be proud of team P.E.I.'s performance.

[East Coast Music Awards, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to honour all the east coast musicians who won East Coast Music Awards this past Sunday, in particular the four Islanders who won five awards.

Lennie Gallant received two major awards: the male artist of the year and the best francophone recording.

Nathan Wiley of Summerside, who burst onto the entertainment scene a year ago with an album he recorded himself in his basement, won the alternative artist of the year award.

Scott Parsons, another veteran musician from Charlottetown and also a veteran of The Landing: Oyster House & Pub in Tyne Valley, won the best African-Canadian recording award.

Finally, the francophone group Barachois won the roots/traditional group of the year award.

I would also like to mention that the parents and uncle of the Arsenault performers in Barachois also won the Queen's Jubilee medal this past summer for their work in Acadian culture.

[Queen's Jubilee Medal, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was also honoured recently to present, along with the Lieutenant-Governor of Prince Edward Island, medals to exemplary citizens of Egmont who recently were awarded the Queen's Jubilee Medal in recognition of their contributions to their fellow citizens, their communities and their country.

These people included: Eddy and Amand Arsenault who kept the Acadian culture alive, Verna Barlow, Shirley Beaton, John Cousins, Warren Ellis, Joseph Ellsworth for his work with fishermen, Deacon Cyrus Gallant, Muncey Harris, Francie MacDougall, Rod MacNeill, Dr. Joyce Madigane, Wilbert Meggison, Marilla Millar who fostered over 100 children in her home, Premier Keith Milligan, Margaret Penwarden for her work with MS sufferers, Aubin Richard, Marilyn Sark, Benjamin Taylor and the Reverend Charles Wagner.

Once again, I want to congratulate all those who received this distinguished honour.