Lost his last election, in 2006, with 35% of the vote.
Sponsorship Program February 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I think it may be time for the Bloc Quebecois to find something else to talk about.
I repeat again. Despite the allegations of these colleagues, the Liberal Party of Canada has no secret fund. Any question relating to such a secret fund is unacceptable; there is no secret fund.
Sponsorship Program February 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada has no secret funds.
When Bill C-24 on political party financing was being studied, that party wanted retroactivity. It backed down on that in order to get the bill passed so it could obtain public funding for political parties. Now they want to use another approach to get the retroactivity they did not obtain at the time, and did not want, because they wanted the public funds.
Points of Order February 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, allow me to take a little time to look at what happened, to consult and to get back to you on this issue.
Business of the House February 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue with the debate on the opposition motion.
Tomorrow, we will consider report stage of Bill C-15, respecting international transfer of offenders, followed by a motion to refer to committee before second reading Bill C-19, respecting corrections.
On Monday, we will call report stage of Bill C-10, respecting cannabis. If this is completed, we will return to business not finished this week.
Tuesday and Thursday of next week shall be allotted days. The business on Wednesday will depend on progress that may be made in committee and I will communicate directly with my friends opposite when this becomes more clear.
Sponsorship Program February 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Murphy has never written the preamble nor the conclusion of the allegation that the member is alleging.
It is despicable that we should smear the reputation of people on no grounds whatsoever. It is not acceptable. Enough is enough with the smear campaigns.
Sponsorship Program February 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I shall not let anyone in the House accuse Mario Laguë of any wrongdoing. This is an undeserved accusation.
Sponsorship Program February 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I am rising merely to indicate that I do not accept the accusation of hypocrisy from my colleague opposite.
Sponsorship Program February 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, and my colleague as well, we passed Bill C-24 in this House. It is a systematic clarification of the situation as far as political party funding is concerned. Bill C-24, now an integral part of the Canada Elections Act, sets the contribution ceiling for organizations outside of a political party at $1000 a year for all ridings in the country.
The situation has been settled. If my colleague has any documents to table, I invite him to do so.
Privilege February 18th, 2004
It is called professionalism.
Canada Elections Act February 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of opening this debate on referral of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, to a committee before second reading.
As hon. members are aware, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its ruling in the Figueroa case last June, thereby throwing into question some of the key aspects of the Canada Elections Act relating to the registration of political parties.
Moreover, the court suspended application of its decision for one year, that is until June 27, 2004. Bill C-3 represents the government's proposed response to the immediate consequences of the Figueroa ruling.
This bill does not, however, necessarily constitute a permanent solution. The Figueroa ruling is highly complex, and a more thorough study of its impact is required. This is why I have written to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to encourage a broader examination of the Canada Elections Act.
I have asked the committee, moreover, to present all of its recommendations in the form of a draft bill, within a year's time. This is a concrete example of application of our democratic reform.
Bill C-3 is a very slightly modified version of Bill C-51 which was introduced in the last session of Parliament. It is imperative to reintroduce the bill in order to respond to the Supreme Court ruling within the timeframe provided by the court.
I will summarize the findings in Figueroa if I may, and then will set out the main thrust of Bill C-3.
In the Figueroa case, the Supreme Court declared that the 50 candidate rule for party registration was unconstitutional. It concluded that the 50 candidate rule as a condition for access to these benefits was incompatible with the right to vote, which is guaranteed under section 3 of the Charter.
In the court's view, the rule's impact on small parties infringed the right to meaningful participation in the electoral process. The court also ruled that this restriction on section 3 rights could not be justified under section 1 of the charter.
However, the court suspended the effect of its ruling until June 27, 2004. In other words, if no changes are made to the law before that date, the 50 candidate rule will cease to apply. This will leave a major void in the law if nothing else is put in to replace it.
As a result, any group whatsoever could readily register as a political party and take advantage of the tax benefits designed for real political parties.
This is the reason we must take action to ensure that the Canada Elections Act remains in effect after June 27, 2004.
Removing the 50 candidate threshold may result in a great number of groups calling themselves parties seeking registration simply to issue tax credits and access other benefits. Not only is this objectionable as a matter of principle, but it could well have a considerable fiscal impact. We need to address this concern in order to ensure that our fiscal regime is not vulnerable to abuse.
Not legislating to comply with the court's decision could well mean that further recourse to the courts will be necessary.
First, the government would likely have to apply to the Supreme Court to request an extension of the suspension period beyond the June 27, 2004 deadline. There is no guarantee this extension would be granted.
Alternatively, the courts may have to provide guidance to the Chief Electoral Officer on the applicable rules from that date forward.
In any event, the absence of a timely legislative response would create uncertainty as to the rules for party registration.
It is therefore incumbent upon us to do everything possible to protect the integrity of the electoral system.
The bill consists of two key pillars: party registration and accountability provisions, as well as a series of anti-abuse measures.
Based on the Supreme Court decision eliminating the 50-candidate threshold, Bill C-3 will now require parties to endorse at least one candidate. The bill also adds new registration requirements and other measures to ensure that parties seeking to register are legitimate parties.
For the first time, the bill adds a definition of “political party”. For example, one of the main purposes of a party should be to participate in public affairs by endorsing and supporting at least one of its members as a candidate.
Second, each party must have a minimum of 250 members, up from 100, and 250 members shall be required to sign declarations stating that they are members of the party and that they support its registration. Three party officers, in addition to the party leader, shall provide their signed consent to act.
From now on, the parties will be able to register during by-elections. Naturally, if one party does not put forward at least one candidate during a general election, that party will be automatically de-registered.
The second key pillar of the proposed legislation is a series of anti-abuse measures directed toward screening out fraudulent parties and protecting the integrity of the electoral financing regime.
For instance, the bill includes a new false statement offence for knowingly making false statements in relation to the registration of a party. Parties would be forbidden to solicit or receive contributions simply for the purpose of redirecting them to a related third party entity.
In addition to potential de-registration of parties, party officers could be held civilly liable if convicted of offences related to or leading to financial abuses and they could be ordered to make restitution to the public purse.
The bill would increase the powers of the Commissioner of Elections Canada to ensure enforcement and compliance under the act.
I would also like to briefly mention two technical amendments to the bill.
First, we eliminated a reference to January 1, 2004, and changed the date the bill comes into force, given the June 27, 2004, deadline.
Second, we are making a minor amendment to ensure that party officers can continue to act while an application for voluntary de-registration is pending.
As I mentioned earlier, it is incumbent upon us to study the broader impacts of the federal decision. For example, is the ruling likely to affect other benefits in the Canada Elections Act such as party and candidate reimbursements or the allocation of broadcasting time?
Finally, I would like to address the timeframe and the date on which the bill would come into force. Normally, amendments to the Canada Elections Act come into force six months after Royal Assent is given, or earlier if the chief electoral officer publishes the bill along with a notice to the effect that all the necessary preparations have been completed.
However, given the Supreme Court deadline, the bill would come into force on June 27, 2004, rather than after the standard six-month waiting period, unless the chief electoral officer announces it is ready earlier.
Furthermore, there is a six-month transition period for currently registered parties.
There has been a solid tradition of all parties working together on electoral legislation. I know that the work that will be done on this legislation will be no exception.
While we have to move quickly to address the Supreme Court's ruling, the government recognizes that the work of the committee is essential. That is why the bill and the request for the committee to undertake a broader review go hand in hand.