House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2008, with 38% of the vote.
Questions On The Order Paper May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, as I explained to my colleague yesterday, both of those answers are being finalized. I regret there has been a delay, but we are attempting to make the answers as fulsome and as responsive to the member's request as possible. He will be familiar with the fact that neither issue can have just a yes or no answer. They deal with policy matters and need appropriate replies.
Questions On The Order Paper May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order Paper May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 28 will be answered today.
Question No. 28-
Committees Of The House May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between the parties on a travel motion. I move:
Pursuant to its mandate in relation to the comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act, phase II, and specifically, to observe how the youth justice system operates in practice, that six members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, four from the Liberal Party, including the chair, one from the Bloc Quebecois, and one from the Reform Party, be authorized to travel to Toronto, London and Windsor, Ontario from Sunday, June 2 to Thursday, June 6, 1996 in order to hold public hearings, visit sites, young offender facilities and programs, and meet with officials, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
Motion agreed to.
Government Response To Petitions May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to four petitions presented during the first session.
Canada Elections Act May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-243, sponsored by the member for Edmonton Southwest.
Bill C-243 is a short bill which proposes amendments to only one subsection of the Canada Elections Act. However, it touches on the important issue of financial controls for the electoral process. I believe this is fundamental to representative democracy.
We on this side of the House support Bill C-243. We do so for three main reasons. Bill C-243 would promote both fiscal restraint and fairness in the electoral system. With respect to fiscal restraint there is a need to ensure that the scarce tax dollars are not directed to electoral activities that receive marginal or trivial voter support. With respect to fairness, there is a need to ensure the system for financing electoral campaigns does not unduly restrict the electoral choices of Canadians.
The bill, we believe, represents a good balance between these often conflicting goals. Let me explain this balance in greater detail.
A registered political party is required to field candidates in at least 50 electoral districts in order to obtain and maintain its registration. Section 322(1) of the Canada Elections Act sets out the conditions that allow registered political parties to receive 22.5 per cent reimbursement of eligible electoral expenses. In order to claim reimbursement a registered political party must spend more than 10 per cent of its election expenses limit as determined under section 39(1) of the act.
Registered political parties become entitled to the reimbursement no matter how few or how many votes they receive. This reimbursement is tied in part to the political party's ability to spend.
There has been criticism of this reimbursement regime. It follows no logical except perhaps to reward the ability to spend, which no electoral system should encourage.
We are familiar with the abuses of the last general election. We noted in the House in May last year the platform of certain political parties whose ideas did not seem to follow the national debate; the Rhinoceros Party and the Yogic Flyers are two that come to mind. Many Canadians perceived their campaigns perhaps as a humorous interlude in the midst of a very serious electoral event. Others we not amused.
We also noted at that time that although most of these registered organizations received marginal public support, less than 1 per cent of the total votes cast, Canadian taxpayers, as my hon. colleague has already pointed out, were required to spend in excess of $1 million in eligible reimbursements. That did not sit well with many Canadians. Questions were asked and Canadians wanted to know why their government handed over such sums to subsidize organizations whose objective did not appear to be one of a political party.
I am not saying these organizations should not exist or that they should not have the right to speak out or to field candidates in any electoral event. That is their right. That is any Canadian's right.
Rather, this debate focuses on the need to apply some fiscal restraint. Moreover, this restraint should be applied in a logical and fair manner.
We believe and agree with our hon. colleague that Bill C-243 would drop the current requirement that a political party spend at least 10 per cent of its allowable election expenses to be eligible for reimbursement. That makes sense.
The basis for reimbursement should not be a political party's ability to spend. Instead, eligibility for reimbursement would be limited to registered political parties which receive either 2 per cent or more of the number of valid votes cast at the election or 5 per cent of the number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the registered party endorsed a candidate. In other words, reimbursement would be voter based. Political parties would be rewarded for their efforts in convincing the electorate of the validity of their principles and their overall platform. That makes sense. The bill also ensures the deck is not stacked against the establishment of new national or regionally based parties.
The royal commission on electoral reform and party financing noted Canadians wanted a broader choice in the selection of their electoral representatives. The bill is in keeping with that viewpoint. In doing so it also supports the fundamental charter right of freedom of expression.
The bill in our opinion is also in keeping with the red book commitments of electoral financing. That is the second reason we as Liberals rise in support of the bill. The red book noted the need to limit the role of special interest groups in campaigns, the need to impose tougher spending limits and the need to close certain loopholes in election spending. Bill C-243 makes an important contribution toward these objectives.
The third and final reason for our support concerns the comprehensive manner in which the bill was developed. The Canada Elections Act is a complex piece of legislation. In general its provisions must not be considered independently from one another. Piecemeal amendments to the act are usually discouraged. However, in this case we can all point to the in depth review conducted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs last fall.
The original proposal of the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest was amended, with his concurrence and support, to take into account the concerns of all committee members. There was a consensus that the bill, as amended, was worthwhile and would not impact inadvertently on the other provisions of the act. It shows what can be accomplished when members work together.
The government's support of the bill today is tangible proof of its belief in the importance and the relevance of private members' bills.
Motions For Papers May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
Question Passed As Order For Return May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleague would take yes for an answer. The member will find that we tabled Question No. 3 today which I believe was the bulk of the member's concern. With regard to Questions Nos. 2 and 4, Question No. 2 is being finalized and Question No. 4 is close to being ready.
Question Passed As Order For Return May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I can respond to the hon. member that the information I have is that the answer is still being prepared.
Question Passed As Order For Return May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.