Jean Chrétien

[Iraq, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is a totally gratuitous statement by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

We are very actively involved with the countries on the Security Council in order to ensure that the matter is dealt with in such a way as to ensure peace and not bring about war. This has always been the government's position.

[Foreign Affairs, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is always vigilant and we ensure that the Canadian people are protected. My ministers involved in these files are following the situation very closely. Probably at this time, I would recognize that, yes, there might be a higher level of danger because there is talk of a war, but our institutions are in place.

We have passed legislation in the House to ensure that we work to be ready in case of big problems, and I think that Canada is well prepared.

[Foreign Affairs, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have made Canada extremely relevant because we were the first ones to speak about the need of a UN resolution.

Last summer the Americans and the Brits were talking about going to Iraq without the UN and we lobbied everybody to ensure that there was a resolution. There was a resolution, resolution 1441, and now Dr. Blix will be reporting on Friday. From there we will see what the Security Council members decide, and we will be on the side of the UN as we have always been in the past.

[Foreign Affairs, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian position is well known because we have our ambassador, and NATO is working on this problem on a daily basis. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that Turkey is a member of NATO and it has the right to organize itself in case it has to face the consequences of a war.

We are supporting Turkey, and the French, Belgium and German governments are aware of our position.

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2003]

moved that Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to move second reading of a bill that will change the way politics is done in this country, a bill that will address the perception that money talks, that big companies and big unions have too much influence on politics, a bill that will reduce cynicism about politics and politicians, a bill that is tough but fair.

Canadians demand transparency, openness and accountability. They demand it in health care and we delivered last week.

Canadians demand it from their politicians in terms of their fundraising and we are delivering with this bill.

The bill provides for full disclosure of all contributions and expenses over $200 at all levels, not only for national parties and candidates in elections but for riding associations, for nominations, and for leadership candidates.

We are acting on recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, an officer of the Parliament of Canada. These recommendations were the accumulation of a career spent as custodian of the democratic process in Canada, a career that has earned him the respect and gratitude not just of Canadians or of this House but of new and struggling democracies around the world that have sought his advice as they have worked to bring truly democratic and fair elections to their nations. I want to pay tribute to Mr. Kingsley and I would like to thank him for his excellent work.

With these new rules, there will be no more black holes for campaign contributions and no more allowing unreceipted money and unaccounted expenses.

We only have to look south of the border to see how money impacts on politics, the many millions that are raised for individual Senate seats and the huge contributions to political action committees. In the United States, the fitness of a candidate for office is judged first on his or her ability to raise huge sums of money, rather than on his or her brains or ability to lead. They call it the money primary. It takes place in the shadows long before an idea is expressed, before a speech is given, before a vote is cast. We do not want to see this in Canada.

The bill will ensure that we have a very different system, a typical Canadian new institution, a system that will be a model for other democracies.

Many years ago, we in Canada placed limits on campaign spending. This bill places limits on fundraising. Limits on contributions to political parties. Limits for candidates. Limits for nominations. Limits for leaderships. And it imposes full disclosure.

I was not always in agreement with René Lévesque on everything. But there is no doubt that the party financing legislation he passed in Quebec has served as a model for democracy. It has worked well. This bill builds on that model and corrects some of its flaws.

Contributions from individuals will be limited to a maximum of $10,000 to a political party per year. This amount is approximately equivalent in current dollars to the $3,000 of the Quebec legislation of 1977.

This bill is in the same vein as legislation passed a few years ago in Manitoba to prohibit corporate and union contributions to political parties' election funds.

With a very limited exception, which I will explain in a moment, businesses and trade unions will be prohibited from contributing to political parties or candidates or leaderships or nominations.

We all know there is a perception that corporate and union contributions buy influence. I do not believe that this is true. And I do not believe that any member of this House feels that he or she has been improperly influenced.

But, and this is very important, there is something that we should all recognize. All of us in this House have been guilty at one time or another of throwing out the accusation that corporate or union contributions influence our opponents. Often we have done so without really thinking, and the media are no better.

None of this is good for the political process or democracy. This bill addresses this issue head on. I firmly believe that the elimination of contributions to political parties by business and trade unions will greatly improve the political culture in Canada.

Members of Parliament argued that they should not be precluded from taking very small contributions from local businesses in their ridings. In fact, in the last election, the average such contribution was $450. Clearly such contributions cannot be seen to be influencing decisions.

Therefore the bill allows businesses and trade unions to contribute a maximum of $1,000 a year to a candidate or a riding association, but not to a national party. This is, I believe, an acceptable compromise, but anything more would gravely diminish the purpose of this bill.

A thousand dollars a year over a four-year period adds up to $4,000. No business should be able to contribute more than that to a political party through a riding association. Otherwise we would be recreating at the riding level what we are attempting to eliminate at the national.

Indeed, one of the great sources of frustration to those who are working for a true reform of political party financing is the existence of loopholes that allow people to get around the law. The necessity to plug those loopholes right from the start with this bill, and thus to avoid the public cynicism to which they give rise, is the justification for the severity of this bill we have before us.

Political parties are essential to the democratic process. We all know that in this House. We all know that they need money to operate. That too is essential in a democracy.

The principle of public funding has been long established in Canada through tax credits for individual contributions to political parties and through rebates to parties and candidates for a proportion of election expenses.

To make up for the loss of corporate and union contributions, this bill substantially increases public financing of the political process. The maximum tax credit for individual contributions is raised from $200 to $400. National party rebates for election expenses will be raised from 22.5% to 50%.

Candidates themselves receive a rebate of 50% if they have more than 15% of the vote. The bill reduces the threshold to 10%. Each political party will receive $1.50 per vote received in the last general election.

The increase in the individual tax credit, the increase in the rebate and the direct subsidy to the party will make up for the loss of corporate and trade union contributions and it will do so through public financing, the only way to remove the perception that big money influences decisions of government. We can do this at a cost of about 65¢ per Canadian in non-election years and a bit more than $1 per Canadian in an election year. This is a very small price to pay for helping to improve our democracy. It is a very good investment of public funds.

Some have suggested that the subsidy to a political party means that an individual's tax dollars may go to a party that he or she disagrees with. The reality is that the $1.50 a year goes to the party that person voted for in the previous election.

If someone changes his or her mind after an election, if someone realizes he or she made a mistake, for example by voting for the Canadian Alliance, the $1.50 per year still adds up to a total of $6 over the four years. That person can make up for his or her mistake. Everybody makes mistakes. It could happen to somebody who voted Liberal too, but not many because we are still doing quite well.

That person can make up for his or her mistake by making a personal contribution of up to $10,000 a year to the political party of his or her new choice. That person will benefit from the increase in the limit for the maximum tax credit. The argument about the use of tax dollars for a political party the taxpayer does not agree with just does not hold water.

As a result of this bill, elections will be financed almost 90% by the public. This will make Canada a model for democracy. It is something we should all be proud of.

I know some members have concerns about the impact of this bill on the internal workings of political parties. It is important to understand that these are matters that are not for legislation; they are matters for parties to work out. We do not need legislation to regulate the internal workings of political parties.

This is a long bill with a lot of clauses in it. It is possible that there are provisions that have been drafted in a way where there are unintended consequences. I would hope that the committee will propose appropriate amendments. However, the basic principles of the bill are fundamental to the government. By that I mean disclosure and accountability, the banning of corporate and union contributions with the maximum $1,000 exception, the limits on individual contributions and the public financing regime.

Corporations and unions have contributed to political parties out of a spirit of good corporate citizenship. I thank them and all political parties thank them. I would hope that in the future they will take the money that they would have otherwise contributed to political parties, and first they could send it as a gift to the government to pay for the programs. That would be a contribution if they believe in it but if they have reservations and they do not want to do that, they could contribute that money to charities and universities.

Democracy is a living thing. The history of the world teaches us it is a fragile thing as well, to be nurtured, to be encouraged, to be promoted and to be defended.

Philosophers say there is no such thing as a perfect democracy. Of course that is true. Any society is a work in progress. The truest test of a living, growing democracy like Canada is the extent to which our institutions strive to live up to our ideals, for it is in continuing to measure ourselves against our ideals that we reaffirm their power to inspire. I believe that this bill passes that test.

This bill is about making Canada more open. It is about removing barriers for women, for men of religious and ethnic minorities, for the poor and the disadvantaged. Ultimately it is about ensuring that their voices are heard as loudly and clearly as anyone else.

Forty years ago this month I became a candidate for this Parliament. I was elected on April 8, 1963. I have had the honour of having been elected to this body 12 times. I know I speak for every man and woman in this House when I say that on each of those occasions, I have been filled with reverence for the democratic system.

Bill C-24, far from repudiating the system that allowed me and so many others to serve this great country, pays tribute to it by seeking to give it new energy, new vigour and new relevance by passing on to the new generation a democratic tradition not tired or worn, but renewed and alive; not perfect, but better; one that lives up to its name, one of the most beautiful, most fragile, most cherished words in any language: democracy.

As my career draws to a close, this is a very significant occasion for me. I have seen this Parliament evolve, and I see what is going on out there. Public scepticism is increasing. Our system is a very open one. Question period can be seen in every home every day, as is the case for all the exchanges that take place here in the House, and people can also read reports in the press. A lot of people have lost faith in our democratic institutions.

When we see how people in other jurisdictions have to collect millions and millions of dollars—for instance to become a United States senator—and when the public hears talk of hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions, people lose faith. Here we want our institutions to be made in Canada.

One of the things that is very important for us as Canadians is to have a personality that is very different. There is a country south of us which has a very different institution. We have this Parliament that meets every day, where ministers, the Prime Minister and members come together to ask questions. They do not have this there. We have different institutions that have served Canada well, that have given us a great personality.

This legislation will pass and we will be looked upon as a modern society that takes democracy seriously, a country that is very preoccupied with making sure that diversity and unity are very important. We want to give a chance to everybody to come to Parliament and serve the people. Money will not make the difference. It will be the quality of the system.

[Taxation, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will do as we have done for the last 10 years. He will ensure that we have a balanced budget, that the deficit does not exist any more, that we have reduced taxes as we have by $100 billion over the last three years, and that we are in a very good position financially.

Next Tuesday, the member of Parliament will have the occasion to applaud again the good management of our--

[Taxation, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there will be a budget in exactly seven days. I hope the member will be in the House to listen. The Minister of Finance will deal with his plans about taxation.

[Iraq, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is speaking for the Tory Party, whether it is Mr. Mulroney or him. Mr. Mulroney said this week that we should go to war and not pay attention to the UN at all.

I think the position of this party is the same as they had in 1991, which is that if there is to be a war, it has to be done with the authority of the United Nations.

[Iraq, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have troops in that part of the world at this time. We have ships, planes, and soldiers working in Afghanistan, and fighting terrorism in that part of the world.

The planning groups have been transferred to that part of the world to be closer to the action and the soldiers who are there. We felt it was important that we still be part of the planning there.

Our position is very clear. It is the same as that of the government of the day in 1991, that there shall be no war outside of the umbrella of the United Nations. That was the opposition--

[Iraq, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have had people in Tampa, Florida, for more than 16 months planning the activities for Afghanistan, the protection of the waters in that part of the world and so on. It is part of the ongoing discussions we are having with the people participating in the war against terrorism in that part of the world.

The activities were in Tampa and now they have been transferred to another city. As we want to be part of the planning, not to be left out when we have troops in that part of the world at this time, we feel that it is important--