Madam Speaker, unless I am mistaken, I do not think that there is an amendment to this bill currently before the House. So, I do not see how we can consider an amendment to an amendment when there is no amendment to start with.
Lost his last election, in 2006, with 35% of the vote.
Criminal Code February 27th, 2003
Madam Speaker, unless I am mistaken, I do not think that there is an amendment to this bill currently before the House. So, I do not see how we can consider an amendment to an amendment when there is no amendment to start with.
Lobbyists Registration Act February 27th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I ask that you seek the consent of the House to defer the division scheduled for Monday, March 17, at the end of government orders, until March 18, at the end of government orders.
Assisted Human Reproduction Act February 27th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I want to make certain that the question is on Motion No. 93.
Criminal Code February 20th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I think that if you were to seek it, you would find consent to defer the taking of the deferred division until Tuesday at the end of government orders.
Canada Elections Act February 20th, 2003
I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to defer the taking of the deferred division until next Tuesday, at the end of government orders.
Highway Infrastructure February 20th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Transport will forgive us our relentless desire to see an agreement finally reached on the completion of highway 30. Many rumours have been going around in the past few hours.
My question is very simple. Could the Minister of Transport confirm that the negotiations are progressing, and that an agreement on the completion of highway 30 can be expected very shortly? Is there finally reason to be optimistic about the completion of highway 30?
Lobbyists Registration Act February 20th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there is unanimous consent for the recorded division to be further deferred until Tuesday, at the end of government orders.
Canada Elections Act February 18th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak to Bill C-24.
This is really a very bold initiative, comparable to René Lévesque's when he was Premier of Quebec in 1977, in terms of cultural changes to political party financing.
The reason I find it to be such a bold reform, which basically deserves substantial support, is that, politically, it makes it possible to achieve, at the federal level, an uheard of degree of transparency, in terms of the financing of federal political parties.
We in Quebec are used to that, to seeing such principles spread across the country. I find it to be an extremely encouraging and promising approach to politics, one which bodes well in terms of exercising democracy.
This bill provides for limits on the amount of contributions by individuals and corporations. Individuals may contribute up to $10,000. Corporations may contribute up to $1,000, but only in electoral districts, that is to say to electoral district associations as opposed to directly to political parties.
This bill imposes spending limits on nomination campaigns. Hon. members know as I do that two or three of us who are aspiring to become candidates, for the Liberal Party for example, in a given riding, are put to the test of a vote by members. To that end, we campaign to be designated official candidates for that riding.
For the first time, statutory limits will be imposed; I say statutory because some limits are imposed in an ad hoc fashion.
This bill provides for the public financing of political activities. This is not new in itself, since there is already a public contribution, through tax credits and the partial refund of election expenses. We know that there is already a public contribution to political activity.
Now, an amount will be paid for each vote obtained by the party in the previous election, to ensure full transparency of political party financing.
When we talk about democracy, I think that we must not forget that the best exercise in democracy is for the public to take control of political activity.
How can this be accomplished? First, when a political party or a riding association is required not only to provide audited books showing income and expenditures, but also to indicate the source of all income and the allocation of expenditures, and to make these figures public, I think that enormous progress has been achieved in terms of transparency.
This bill is fundamental and, as I said earlier, it will change Canada's political culture.
It is not perfect. I believe that there are numerous questions that need to be answered. For example, the bill is supposed to come into force on the later of January 1, 2004, and the day that is six months after the day it is assented to.
We know that federal electoral boundaries are being readjusted. The process has begun. The new map of electoral boundaries will come into force only for elections after June 2004.
In other words, if Bill C-24, now before us, was effective as of January 1, 2004, with certain ridings having to file reports after six months, everything would have to be changed again to take into consideration the new ridings.
Why do things twice? Maybe there is a way to improve things in this respect. I am using the electoral map as one example, but there are others.
For example, in the Liberal Party there are provincial wings and a federal wing. There are also provinces where some of the rules of the Liberal Party of Canada and the provincial Liberal Party are the same and some are not. It is essential to take the time to sort this out as efficiently as possible.
We are talking about ceilings. As far as I am concerned, and I have said it before, the notion of capping financial contributions from business, like contributions from individuals, is fundamental to this bill. If the ceiling is $1,000 and it is spent in one single riding, will this not be an advantage for urban ridings, since that is where businesses have their head office, compared to rural ridings where there are fewer head offices? I think that it is worth sorting out this problem in a manner consistent with the substance of the bill, on which we all agree.
What happens when there is a nomination and an electoral campaign in the same year? The same company could not contribute twice; it is limited to a contribution of $1,000 a year. Perhaps there is a way to arrange it so that a nomination contestant keeps this $1,000, so that the candidate who actually runs for the party in the election that follows no longer has access to it.
There are all sorts of problems of this nature that—I repeat—are not fundamental problems, but enforcement problems. Some political parties, as I said earlier, have provincial wings. If the financing base for the ridings of these provincial wings is reduced, and if refunds go to the wing or at least party headquarters, how will these provincial wings be able to finance themselves when they do not have the right to receive funds from companies directly? There are many problems of this kind that we must address.
Nevertheless, I really do not want us to lose sight of the fact that this bill is absolutely essential. All of us here know the procedure. I would like to remind the House that a bill exists once it has been introduced; this is called first reading. Then there is a debate—during which I am speaking today—which is second reading. This is concluded by a vote in this House. The purpose of this vote is to determine if there is support for the principle of the bill.
I will vote without hesitation for the principle of this bill. Then, in the normal flow of things, the bill will be sent to committee, to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in this case, for detailed consideration. That is when the issues and concerns I have raised are looked at in detail, not only to make this bill excellent, but so that it can be enforced in a consistent, harmonious and effective manner.
I look forward to the day when, with these well-thought out, well-worked, well-researched changes—and in fact with the hope that all the political parties will support them—we will be able to give Canada, thanks to this initiative taken by our leader and Prime Minister, new legislation and new provisions that will govern the transparency of political parties and their operations in Canada. I will be extremely proud to have a final vote on this.
Canada Elections Act February 12th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I cannot listen to the comment made by the member opposite regarding statements made by the member for LaSalle—Émard without correcting the record.
Clearly in the interview in question—which, incidentally has been made public, including subsequent interviews that were given to respond to this interview—an example of a political party was given in comparison to another, which would or would not receive support.
I categorically reject all allegations by the Alliance member opposite. I reject the allegation attributing motives that are not true to someone who is unable to respond directly to them. Like the members for Lac-Saint-Louis and LaSalle—Émard, I believe that democracy speaks and that a party that is elected to this House has the same rights as any other political party.
That is my philosophy, that is his philosophy and that is the philosophy of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, and I will not allow the comments made by my colleague from LaSalle—Émard to be misrepresented.
Committees of the House January 31st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership and the associate membership of the committees of the House and I should like to move concurrence at this time.
(Motion agreed to)