Stephen Harper

[Iraq, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I guess our fear is that this government would be the last to find out.

As this crisis worsens, there is anxiety in financial markets worldwide. Here in North America we are already seeing delays at the border.

Only now, after months of disengagement, our Prime Minister travels today to the United States. Given that Canada and the government has not been part of the allied coalition, what assurance can the government give the House that war or security activities will, in no way, affect or disrupt Canadian trade, or lose Canadians their jobs?

[Iraq, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think what the minister is really saying is that they are reading polls and doing focus groups.

A worldwide terrorist alert is also escalating. Tanks are positioned at Heathrow airport in London. The United States of America is on a nationwide orange alert. We are told that prominent North Americans may face assassination. In response, the government tells us that it is finally banning groups that have long been illegal elsewhere.

Does the government get it on this? Is it putting Canada on some kind of security alert and, if so, at what level?

[Iraq, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, again today the Iraqi crisis has deepened. Arms inspectors now apparently believe that Iraqi violations of UN resolutions go far beyond what was previously suspected.

Allied troops are amassing in the Persian Gulf and President Bush gave an address to his troops today that clearly put them on a war alert for Iraq.

In response, our defence minister announces sending troops to Afghanistan.

Does the government get it? Is it engaged in the Iraq crisis and, if so, how?

[Foreign Affairs, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, but the question will be which side of the UN. If the world is waiting for leadership from this Liberal government, the world is in very deep trouble indeed.

Today the government is joining countries stepping up security alerts in light of the deteriorating international situation. Now this comes on the heels of the tape reported to be from Osama bin Laden urging solidarity between the al-Qaeda terrorist network and Iraq.

Does the government believe Canada may face serious security threats because of the deteriorating situation around Iraq?

[Foreign Affairs, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that position. I wish we could have received that kind of clarity when we asked on Monday. We keep getting a lack of clear answers.

This is a government that says that it is against pre-deployment of troops in the Persian Gulf, yet it quietly is sending troops into the region. For months the Prime Minister said that we would require a second United Nations resolution to move on Iraq and yesterday he voted against that position in the House.

Is it really the government's position to straddle every fence it can find and to make Canada as irrelevant as possible in this crisis?

[Foreign Affairs, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, NATO is in its worst crisis since its foundation over 50 years ago. A member country, Turkey, has called upon its NATO allies to deploy to defend its border given the deepening crisis in Iraq. This government says that it supports Turkey's position but frankly this is irrelevant unless it is backed with some action.

My question for the Prime Minister is this. Has the government communicated to the governments of Germany, France and Belgium, in the strongest possible terms, that their position in blocking this request is unacceptable and is endangering NATO's credibility?

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2003]

The government House leader asks what is the name of the case? It is the Harper case, the most recent one, and we will get to that.

It is interesting how little problem the government has talking about this particular case or about cases where it is violating the freedom of expression of citizens yet it clams up when it comes to covering up GST fraud or soft penalties for terrorists.

I say once again, the courts declared each one of these attempts a violation of freedom of expression under the charter of rights and not something that constituted a reasonable limit on such freedoms in a free and democratic society.

The most recent attempt occurred when the Elections Act was amended in the year 2000, on the eve of the last general election. This past November the Alberta court of appeal upheld the initial trial decision striking down and rendering these provisions unconstitutional. As has been noted, this particular litigation was initiated by the National Citizens' Coalition at the time when I served as its president.

Rather than accepting this clear statement of the highest court of Alberta and subsequent lower courts, the federal government has decided to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada at further taxpayer expense. In addition, and despite the clear court ruling--and frankly Elections Canada should hang its head in shame--it is pursuing prosecution of the NCC, a voluntary citizens' organization, for alleged violation of the act in Ontario during the 2000 general election under provisions that have already been declared unconstitutional by senior courts in the country. It is absolutely disgraceful.

To put this all in context, the desire of the government to regulate the participation of ordinary Canadians in the political process is reflected in both its zeal to enforce such limits on independent groups and in this bill by its attempt to over regulate such activity by local riding associations and nomination contestants. The government seems to want to remove the voluntary element from the electoral process and replace it with state regulation, augmented by favouring established parties through massive increases in direct public subsidies.

To conclude, in addition to this government trying to regulate the participation of ordinary Canadians in the political process, this bill will cause troubling changes to the source of contributions to political parties, shifting it from the voluntary act of free citizens to a tax levied on all taxpayers.

In a democratic society, it is unfair for shareholders and unionized workers to contribute to a political party without their consent. However, it is even worse to take this money from taxpayers without their permission.

Let us be clear. We could support, in principle, the provisions of this bill to limit corporate and union contributions. What we are against is replacing corporate and union contributions with forced subsidies from taxpayers. Political parties should learn to depend mostly on contributions from their members.

Frankly, we find it outrageous that the Liberals are describing this bill as a democratic reform. There is nothing democratic about forcing people to give money without their consent. Furthermore, many of these so-called reforms to strengthen our democracy have the exact opposite effect.

This legislation will discourage voluntary initiatives at the local level, creating an even wider gap between voters and politicians, discouraging people from becoming a member of a political party and preserving the status quo.

In summary, in addition to the government's attempt to over regulate the participation of ordinary citizens in the political process, the bill represents a disturbing shift in the sources of political party contributions from voluntary acts of free citizens to mandatory imposition on all taxpayers.

If we look at the provisions of the bill, there can be no doubt. This is a bill designed by the Liberal Party, of the Liberal Party, and for the Liberal Party. For this reason the Canadian Alliance cannot support Bill C-24 in its current form.

Let me conclude by moving the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word “that” with the following:

This House decline to give second reading to Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, because the bill shifts the sources of contributions to political parties from the voluntary actions of people and organizations to a mandatory imposition on all taxpayers, making political parties more dependent upon the state and less responsive to society.

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2003]

The government House leader says read the bill. I think the committee will want to study the provisions on MP trust pretty carefully.

Let us talk about transparency. One desirable aspect of the bill is the goal of promoting greater openness and transparency. However here there are real problems. I submit that this legislation pushes beyond what is sensible and may actually weaken the system it attempts to protect.

The bill does not but should, as I said earlier, change some basic rules for disclosing small contributions to parties and candidates. As I noted, the requirement that all $200 donations must be reported to Elections Canada with names of contributors is excessive.

Under the legislation such detailed reporting and disclosure would actually be extended to riding associations, candidates seeking nomination and leadership candidates. This would only add onerous bookkeeping and bureaucratic burdens to local associations and candidates. The thought that donations less than $1,000 could foster or even appear to contribute to undue influence on the political system is preposterous. The government knows it. That is why its tax credit system encourages people to make such donations.

In truth the enhanced measures in the bill would produce very little increased transparency for what is in effect an enormous, unnecessary bureaucratic incursion. More likely, the increased bureaucracy at the local level would have the potential to cause volunteers to become disengaged and disenchanted with the process.

Even more important, I am very concerned that the bill could discourage the participation of people seeking nomination. Under the bill, riding associations are required to file a report with Elections Canada containing the names of candidates who contest the nomination within 30 days of the selection date. Nomination contestants cannot collect donations nor spend any money until they appoint a financial agent and they are required to file a full financial report through their financial agent if they receive more than $500 in total donations or spend more than that money.

These bureaucratic measures will lead to increased costs and additional time. Resources are usually sparse in nominations races, especially among individuals seeking nomination for the first time. This process will simply discourage good people from seeking party nominations. This result will be to further protect incumbents and the status quo.

There is little, if any, value to the public interest from accumulating information on individuals seeking a party position, especially if those contestants fail to win the nomination. Perhaps it could be applicable to a successful nomination contest. When the bill is referred to committee, this is something the Canadian Alliance will raise.

However, let us beware of the U.S. experience. A lot of mythology comes out of this government constantly about the U.S. experience. There are real problems in the United States, some of them the government has identified However the United States has far closer regulation of donations and reporting that could ever be imagined in this country. I know our House leader will go through that in committee.

The real effect of this regulation, especially regulation as a goal in itself, has been to discourage candidacies and discourage competition for nominations. People without the expertise and the connections within the party find it practically impossible to get into the system without being accused of breaking the law.

I cannot leave this discussion without making some reference to the current defect in the Canada Elections Act that discourages increased citizen involvement in the electoral process outside of political parties, something which this bill notably fails to address. I am referring of course, as the government House leader says, to independent third party advertising during election campaigns.

On several occasions, and most recently in 2000, the Liberals have attempted to place limits on the freedom of individuals Canadians to express political views or policy positions during the most advantageous time to use the mass media, the period of elections campaigns. It has at least restricted them to do so unless they go through the major parties.

In each case the courts declared such attempts a violation of the freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and not something that constituted a reasonable limit on such freedoms in a free and democratic society.

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I started out today with mere skepticism about what the Prime Minister was up to but after listening to his speech, I guess my skepticism can only rise. For a man who claims there is no problem at all with corruption and undue influence in his government, he is sure making an awfully big deal about fixing it. I hope members caught some of the ironies in that.

There was criticism of the American system of electing senators. I remind the Prime Minister that he is opposed to electing senators at all in this country.

He was praising democratic political parties and keeping them open, while the aspirant to his own leadership restricts membership sales in his own political party.

This is a party that talks about cleaning up the nomination process, making it more open for nominations and for elections, when the Prime Minister regularly appoints candidates in winnable ridings for his party.

The biggest hypocrisy today is to talk about democracy and the importance of this institution, when only a half an hour ago the Prime Minister and his successor stood in the House to vote against the requirement that they come here and get a mandate for war, that they face this House before sending our soldiers to face war.

The Canadian Alliance, unlike the Liberal Party, has long been a proponent of real democratic reform. We have proposed over the years substantial reforms to how we do business in the House.

Our previous House leader, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, and the member for Fraser Valley before him, tabled documents “Building Trust” and “Building Trust II” that have made important proposals for how we can actually bring democracy to the House of Commons.

Of course our party has been at the forefront for a very long time in urging reform of the Senate, and not just elections, but comprehensive reform to make it a democratic and effective institution. We have stood to bring about in this country an effective system of direct democracy to enhance the voice of average Canadians, not once every four years, but all the time.

Obviously with this kind of history, our party is very interested in real measures that would avoid or lessen undue influence from the large donations of corporations, unions, associations or individuals. It is obviously something that we would be interested in.

However, by its very structure, Bill C-24, the campaign finance reform legislation proposed by the government, while it hints at some improvements, in the end it fails to be the type of positive reform legislation that we can support. It does not, and if we are realistic, it cannot end corruption or inappropriate influence in government. Our fear is that it will serve to weaken an already fragile democratic framework.

First, to be frank, the appearance of this legislation at this time is too driven by internal Liberal politics and needs: the need of the Prime Minister to whitewash various scandals from his record before he retires; the need to deal with his leadership rival within the Liberal Party; and, as stated by the Prime Minister's own principal adviser to his caucus, the need to deal with the bank debts of the Liberal Party itself.

When the Liberal public relations rhetoric is set aside, the true nature of the bill is simply the replacement by the government of its addiction to large business and union donations with an addiction to taxpayer funding.

Ultimately, like so much Liberal political reform legislation, it really is about stopping participation. The bill is really about simply who cannot do what, when they cannot do it, and why they should not be able to do it. It is not in any way, shape or form about encouraging or replacing participation in the political process.

The bill as a consequence will simply require hardworking Canadians to pay for political parties they do not necessarily support.

Fundamentally, it is not democratic for a supporter of the NDP to be forced to back the Canadian Alliance or for a supporter of the Alliance to be forced to back the Liberals. Quite frankly the bill is simply an autocratic solution to a democratic problem.

First, the bill represents a further progression of the public subsidization of political parties. The Prime Minister praises that as a good thing in and of itself, and that is the problem with the Liberal Party. It is a problem of the Liberal Party not just in this, it is the problem of the Liberal Party when it comes to running the economy.

Political parties, like markets, should be responsible to the people who need them and want them, not operate on subsidies from people who do not.

Currently, the public may or may not be aware, that political parties are already very heavily subsidized by taxpayers. In the first place donations to political parties are subsidized, first, by a tax credit system that credits up to 75% of the donation. Then, when candidates and political parties actually spend the money, they are reimbursed for that electoral spending by taxpayers based on minimal electoral performance; for candidates up to 50% of eligible expenditures and for parties, 22.5% of eligible expenditures.

To give some idea of the scale of this, for the 2000 election these so-called rebates cost Canadian taxpayers just over $31 million to refund candidates and $7.5 million to refund political parties for their eligible election expenses. Currently, by this one element alone, taxpayers already subsidize slightly less than 40% of the funding of parties in Canada.

Proposals in the legislation would push that direct subsidization, leaving aside tax credits, to beyond 70%. The legislation would increase taxpayer reimbursement to political parties. The tax credit program is enhanced but more disturbing, so are expense rebates. The percentage of eligible expenditures that is to be refundable to parties has been more than doubled to 50%. The authorized limit of such expenditures has been raised to 70¢ of each registered voter from 62¢. As well, the threshold for receiving the rebates has been lowered for candidates.

Finally, the cost of polling, which is a significant cost, will now count as an eligible expense. Far worse, because that is only the beginning, on top of this enrichment of the current reimbursements for parties, there is now to be a yearly allowance paid to each party which obtains minimal shares of the popular vote. Starting in 2004, each party will be allotted a share of $1.50 times the total number of ballots cast in the last election based on the percentage of the votes they received in the last election.

Obviously, the biggest beneficiary is the Liberals and they will benefit regardless of how people's views of them may change in their performance as a governing party. Admittedly, the Canadian Alliance stands to benefit financially from the allowance. We will benefit especially because this party does not rely heavily on donations from corporations, unions and other large donors. However the principal beneficiary will be the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Liberals could not exist without an alternative source of funding, guaranteed taxpayer funding, if corporate donations were severally limited. Whereas the Canadian Alliance has shown it can and would continue to survive.

For instance, in 2001, the Liberals received donations from fewer than 5,000 individuals which comprised only 19% of their total fundraising. That same year nearly 50,000 individuals contributed to the Canadian Alliance and that made up over 61% of our funding.

It is obvious that the bill serves simply for the Liberals to replace their heavy reliance on corporate donations in particular and union donations, not with donations from the CEOs and union bosses who made those contributions, with subsidies from taxpayers. In fact, the Liberals have structured the bill so that they will actually receive a net benefit from the new rules.

In 2004 the Liberals stand to receive almost $8 million worth of taxpayer money which will replace about $6.5 million they received from corporations, unions and associations, not all of which I should add, will be lost.

In a democracy it is simply wrong to force hard-working Canadians to support political parties. It should be the voters right to choose which parties they support in any given year.

What is needed for real accountability is some financial link between politicians and the individuals who support them. One way of doing that and one way that does exist in the system is the political tax credit system which the bill enhances. This is one proposal worthy of consideration, but even this proposal deserves close examination in committee. Already small and modest contributions to political parties are much more heavily supported by the state, much more generously than charitable contributions. That is something that should be examined.

It is unfortunate that even here there is a flaw. Donors of only $200 to our system face disclosure under this present system in the requirement. There is no possible undue influence from a donation to a political party or candidate of $200. It is simply unnecessary paperwork and exposes, through publication, the names of donors to solicitors and fundraisers of all kinds, something they should not have to face.

I repeat, the real problem is that by strong-arming hard-working Canadians into paying for political parties, the bill will over time distance an already apathetic public from engaging in the political system and our democratic framework will suffer as a consequence. Voter turnout has been constantly falling. In the 2000 election it was the lowest since Confederation and it has been on a steady decline since the 1980s. This trend can only get worse if the legislation is adopted. No politician in any party can afford to be alienated, distanced or not directly accountable to voters.

This is the problem that really concerns me. It is one thing for the government to come here and at least come clean and say that there have been instances of undue influence in the government or in politics in Canada. However it is not a solution to say that taxpayers will fund us regardless. We cannot replace undue influence with no influence whatsoever from the voters as to how their money is spent.

I would point out that there are ample problems. If we look at the limits set out in the bill, there are already ample problems that require study. The bill sets out severe limits for donations to corporations, unions and associations and it has some limits for individuals. This could help deal with problems of undue influence, but let us look at some of the problems.

For example, under the legislation individuals are allowed to contribute up to $10,000 per year per party, plus an additional $10,000 in any one year to leadership contestants of any one party, plus a further contribution of $10,000 to the election campaigns of independent candidates. It stands to reason that average Canadians cannot afford to contribute anywhere close to these amounts annually to political parties. This is a measure designed specifically to capture wealthy Liberal supporters who in the past donated using corporate or union funds at their disposal.

Unfortunately, there are many loopholes for those who really wish to use this to buy influence. For example, the legislation does not set age restrictions for donations. An individual family could contribute $10,000 per year, per party, times the number of family members. Also, although there is an attempt to prohibit indirect contributions, the restrictions limit those contributions to individuals who have filed nomination papers with the returning officer during a writ period. This still allows for unlimited pre-writ donations to an MP's trust to assist his or her re-election, as pre-writ expenses are not regulated by the act.

It is in any case virtually impossible for police to track and enforce the provisions in the bill, which are intended to prevent corporations, unions and others trying to circumvent such limits. The reality is that as long as the government maintains programs and agencies that pay large amounts of discretionary money to particularly the businesses, programs that pick winners and losers, these limits will do little to restrict those with money who wish or who need to influence government and politicians, whether they do so by the terms of the legislation or whether they do so illegally.

[Goods and Services Tax, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we are never going to shut up until we get the answers to these questions.

Let me move this subject slightly to explore links between the latest GST rebate fraud and terrorism. The sum of $22 million of taxpayers' money was funnelled through a credit union run by Ripudaman Singh Malik. Malik has since been charged with 329 counts of murder and conspiracy in the Air India bombings.

How long has the government known about this link? Has anyone in the government--