|
At the outset, I wish to say that I
and my colleagues on this side of the chamber do not support
this bill in principle or in substance. We are, I believe,
unequivocally opposed to this bill. As well, honourable
senators, based on what I have read and heard in the print media
and in the electronic media — and indeed, around the corridors
of these Parliament buildings — it appears clear to me
that a substantial number of members of Parliament, and senators
who are not members of my party, are likewise opposed to the
proposed legislation. Not only is the governing Liberal
Party of Jean Chrétien deeply divided on this bill, but its own
incumbent president, Mr. Stephen LeDrew, has been waging a
nationwide campaign against the bill since November of last
year. The legislation is, he says, "as dumb as a bag of
hammers.'' He has declared this publicly on many occasions. Yet,
honourable senators, that same Mr. LeDrew was denied a hearing
of his views when Bill C-24 was in committee in the other place.
I am confident that Mr. LeDrew would have no objection if I were
to follow his lead, with apologies to Charles Dickens, in The
Pickwick Papers, 1837, by saying, and I quote: "This legislation
is also as dumb as a drum with a hole in it.''
Simply put, honourable senators,
Bill C-24, if passed, will be bad law and equally bad public
policy. Such ill-founded actions of Parliaments past gave rise
to the expression, I believe, "The law is an ass.'' Do we want
this to be continued? Honourable senators, I respectfully
suggest that the circumstances and manner in which we are being
asked by the government to consider this bill, when viewed
together, are tantamount to a flagrant abuse of the process of
Parliament. I say this without exaggeration for the following
reasons.
First and foremost, this bill would
implement fundamental changes to the way we manage our democracy
in Canada and the way we run our free electoral system that is
so envied around the world. Canadians enjoy and cherish a
time-tested, constitutional democracy based on the political
party system. For Canada's democracy to function well, our
political parties must have access to sufficient funding to
enable them to operate freely and efficiently, and to conduct
appropriate policy research and get their messages out to the
Canadian people in a free and unfettered fashion. This would
allow citizens to make informed choices when they elect their
representatives for the federal governments, and also allow a
strong and viable alternative to always subsist so that voters
have a choice, should the incumbent government of the day
falter.
Heretofore and currently, honourable
senators, we have had a system whereby our political parties
have been self-financing, for the most part, with unlimited
access to donations from unions, corporations, associations and
individuals. We have imposed various checks and balances to
avoid abuse, or any perception thereof, and to broaden the base
of financial support by individuals and small businesses.
The principal checks and balances,
which have worked well, are the following: One, complete
transparency through rigid disclosure requirements for all
political donations above $200; two, strict registration and
annual reporting requirements for political parties; three,
limits on election expenditures by parties in Canada at the
constituency and national levels; four, a ban on political
donations by non-Canadian individuals and enterprises; five, a
modest tax credit with a maximum of $500 on contributions of up
to $1,150; and six, a fair and just regime that provides for the
reimbursement by the government of a portion of election
expenses, duly incurred and properly reported upon by individual
candidates and registered political parties.
This system has worked well in
practice, honourable senators, and it has embodied a modest
blend of public funding through the tax credit and election
expense reimbursement. For example, in 2000, the last general
election year, the national parties were reimbursed $8 million
by the government, and individual candidates who received 15 per
cent of the vote received reimbursement of $15 million.
This current system has not —
certainly to my knowledge, in the 30 years we have had it — been
at the root of or been the subject of any undue high-profile —
or even low-profile for that matter — abuse or scandal. Nor has
it had the disadvantage of restricting the freedom of action of
Canadian citizens, unions, corporations and/or individuals
through a regime of limits on contribution levels such as the
one contemplated by Bill C-24.
Under the proposed new system, the
estimated cost to the taxpayers during an election year could
run as high as $130 million, I am told, and as much as $50
million of this would reoccur on an annual basis, not every four
or five years. Therefore, the numbers and the excess costs are
substantial.
Indeed, there was a cartoon in the
Montreal Gazette, on Sunday morning, of a gentleman coming in
with the mail and his wife was sitting there. She said, "What is
that, dear?'' He holds out this document and says, "It's the new
political finance bill here in Canada. The bill is for us,
dear,'' and so it will be.
Yet we are told by Mr. Chrétien and
his supporters that the rationale for this bill, Bill C-24, is
the urgent need to dispel a so- called perception amongst
Canadians that our political party financing system is corrupt
and subject to widespread abuse and undue influence in Ottawa by
corporations, the labour movement, and by the mega-wealthy.
(1850)
As recently as last Thursday,
Senator Robichaud said, in this chamber, that the objectives of
Bill C-24 are:
...to improve the transparency and
fairness of Canada's electoral system and address the
perception that corporations, unions and the wealthy exercise
a disproportionate influence in our political system.
Honourable senators, I put it to you
four-square — no such perception exists in Canada. What would
the various legitimate, registered lobby firms have to say about
this? What is the so- called or alleged perception about them?
Could they be next to be nationalized? Or will they simply laugh
all the way to the bank at the government's stupidity, and reap
the rewards of Bill C-24, receiving from corporations, unions,
and wealthy individuals those funds they otherwise would have
given to support the party or parties of their choice? I believe
the real answer lies elsewhere.
We are given to understand that Bill
C-24 forms part of the so- called ethics package, hastily
cobbled together and announced by the Prime Minister in May 2002
when it became evident that he and his government were under a
substantial ethical cloud, following the shocking revelations
about gross mismanagement of vast sums of public monies from the
Transitional Jobs Fund in HRDC. Then there was this curious
series of loans that led to the so-called "Shawinigate''
scandal. It was soon followed by news of the malodorous, if not
criminal, activities surrounding a series of contracts awarded
by Public Works Canada to certain advertising agencies in
Montreal, Quebec. I am told that we will soon be hearing from
the RCMP on a series of charges on this latter subject. Could
that possibly be why there is such a rush to push this bill
through to early enactment?
Honourable senators, in all
seriousness I ask you: Do these spurious reasons justify our
agreeing to fundamental changes to a piece of key, and generally
well-functioning, framework legislation, which governs an
important aspect of how we manage our democracy? The answer, I
suggest, is a resounding no.
For centuries, it has been
conventional wisdom that change for change's sake or for the
wrong reasons is bad business, bad public policy. As early as
1660, the noted British parliamentarian and Secretary of State,
Viscount Falkland, dealt with the issue with his memorable and
oft-quoted dictum, "When it is not necessary to change, it is
necessary not to change.''
I respectfully submit, honourable
senators, that Mr. Chrétien's so-called issue of perception is
merely a smokescreen, a cover-up. We have ample laws on the
books, including those in the Criminal Code, to deal with fraud,
corruption, abuse of office, the suspicion of and/or the
perception of same, and the mismanagement of public funds by
politicians and public officials. Surely we should not agree to
dismantle an exemplary political financing system which has
served us well since 1974 for such questionable motives, and
replace it at great cost to the taxpayers with a new,
fundamentally different and untested system which I submit is
fraught with flaws and, in fact, has minimal support in
Parliament or elsewhere.
For us to agree to do so, honourable
senators, would be a sorry failure by us in our duties as
senators to the Canadian people to whom we are accountable,
especially in a case like this where the very functioning of our
democracy is at issue and the basic structure is being summarily
tinkered with for no valid reason.
There is more, honourable senators.
The improbable rationale underlying this bill is not the only
element which constitutes what I have alluded to earlier as the
abuse of the parliamentary process. I am troubled by the
following questions. I feel strongly that they should be
coherently and forthrightly answered for us before proceeding
with second reading. They are: First, why is there such unseemly
haste to enact Bill C-24? Second, why was it necessary to cut
off debate and invoke closure in the other place? Third, why are
we senators being asked, directly or indirectly, to forgo the
necessary and thorough study this key framework legislation
deserves and to proceed to Royal Assent before the customary
summer recess? Fourth, what is the pressing reason for passing
Bill C-24 now, in mid-June, under stringent time pressure,
rather than deferring it until autumn and giving it a full study
and the kind of sober second thought required and merited in the
special circumstances which prevail? Fifth, is the Prime
Minister's autocratic demand for the bill now, rather than in
the fall, sufficient reason for us to venture on to that
notorious slippery slope which invariably results in bad law and
bad public policy?
There are others in this chamber,
much better placed than I am, to answer these questions which I
have posed, I assure you, honourable senators, sincerely and in
the best of good faith.
Leaving aside these disconcerting
issues of process, I wish to make it clear that, in my view, the
present law on political finances in Canada is by no means
perfect. Indeed, there are a number of aspects of the Canada
Elections Act which need to be amended and modernized, not only
for the sake of consistency but also to respond to problems that
have arisen in practice, and to close certain loopholes that
have become apparent during elections in recent years. For
example, I strongly believe that the present disclosure rules
need to be tightened up and expanded to deal with nominating
conventions, leadership races, as well as to cover donations
made outside election writ periods at the constituency level and
to party organizations on university campuses and elsewhere.
Furthermore, the loophole known as
the "in-and-out scheme'' made popular, apparently, by our
friends in the Bloc Québécois, needs to be closed. I also
believe that tighter and more practical accounting and reporting
regulations would be in order for constituency associations and
other local party organizations.
However, a wholesale change in
philosophy and structure, the introduction of massive government
funding, the imposition of costly red tape and a host of
bureaucratic regulations on local party organizations are
things, I respectfully submit, which we do not need in Canada at
this juncture.
Bill C-24 is replete with a myriad
of awkward and onerous rules and regulations which may make the
work of the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, and his staff
much easier, but it will create an administrative nightmare, an
unmanageable one, I submit, for the thousands of volunteers and
political workers who toil in and around elections to make our
democratic system work as well as it does.
The need for reform of our political
financing system was recognized by the Mulroney government
during the mid-1980s. I refer in particular in this regard to
the White Paper on Election Law Reform which was published and
circulated in June of 1986 by the Honourable Ray Hnatyshyn, then
President of the Privy Council and Government House Leader — the
late Ray Hnatyshyn, a great Canadian.
This white paper was part of a
process which ultimately led to the setting up of the Royal
Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing in November
of 1989. This royal commission had a comprehensive mandate — to
inquire into the appropriate principles and processes that
should govern the election of members of the House of Commons
and the financing of the political parties of Canada. It was
chaired by prominent Quebec economist Pierre Lortie, hence the
Lortie commission. Its members included our colleagues Senators
Lucie Pépin and Donald Oliver, as well as Messrs. Pierre
Fortier, Q.C., Robert Gabor, Q.C., and William Knight. All our
major political interests and philosophies were represented.
This royal commission filed a
unanimous report on February 13, 1992, following two full years
of nation-wide public hearings, supplemented by an extensive
consultation process and research program. The report was set
forth in four large volumes containing 16 chapters and 265
recommendations. I can assure honourable senators that all the
main issues related to party financing and the perceptions
surrounding same were investigated fully and dealt with at
length in the report. The exercise was massive, thorough and
very costly to taxpayers.
(1900)
This is the kind of process, I would
suggest, that should be followed when dealing with possible
changes to the basic mechanics of our democracy. Yet, no such
process preceded the drafting of Bill C-24, nor can one find any
noticeable linkage between the Lortie commission's thoughtful
and useful recommendations and the surprising, sudden and
far-reaching provisions of Bill C-24.
Honourable senators, I have been
wondering for several months where Bill C-24 came from. What is
its real purpose? Why are we suddenly making such a fundamental
change to Canada's political financing system? We can only hope
that informed officials will tell the Standing Senate Committee
on Legal and Constitutional Affairs if, indeed, the bill ever
makes it to committee.
I mentioned earlier about Mr. LeDrew
not being heard by the committee in the other place. On three
occasions I wrote and requested to be heard myself, having a
modest background in the field, and was refused a hearing.
The reality is, honourable senators,
that the Lortie commission unanimously found Canada's political
financing system to be one of the best, if not the best, in
existence in any democratic system in the world, based on
political parties. The commission specifically decided against
imposing limits on corporate, union or other financial
contributions to candidates and political parties. The
commission concluded:
Sunshine is the best medicine to
counter public perception of undue influence through financial
contributions to candidates or political parties.
The commission continued:
Full disclosure of the size of
contributions and detailed information about the source of
contributions are an integral component of an electoral system
that inspires public confidence.
With a disclosure system that is
comprehensive and workable, as well as reasonable limits on
election expenses, there is no evidence to justify placing
statutory limits on the size or source of political
contributions at the federal level.
Timely and complete disclosure
helps remove any suspicion about the financial affairs of
candidates and parties by opening them up to public scrutiny.
Disclosure is also essential in enforcing the laws regulating
political finance and ensuring accountability for the use of
public funds.
What has changed? I agree fully with
the conclusions of the Lortie commission, Senator Pépin, Senator
Oliver and others, that limiting political donations, be they
corporate or individual, is not the solution to the alleged
perception problem and, rather, represents inappropriate law and
public policy that could indeed, and likely will, lead to abuses
far more egregious than those being touted by the sponsors of
this badly flawed, proposed legislation.
Honourable senators, I would only
add the following three comments on the issue of limiting
corporate and union contributions, be it to $1,000 or at all,
for that matter. First, as Senator Grafstein pointed out last
week, there are genuine fairness and freedom of expression
issues involved in Bill C-24, all of which cry out for careful
study and consideration. Sadly, apparently this cannot be done
in the short time frame being allocated to us here in the
Senate.
The Hon. the Speaker: I
regret to interrupt Senator Angus, but I would ask other
honourable senators to carry on their conversations outside the
chamber in order that we can hear Senator Angus.
Senator Angus: This is
important stuff. I am even convincing myself.
Second, it has been suggested that
the banning of corporate contributions to political parties in
Quebec has been a major success and should be adopted at the
federal level. I suggest that this suggestion is far off the
mark. Comparing a provincial regime with the federal regime is
like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. The order of
magnitude and the cost of operating the federal political system
are vastly higher and more complex at the federal level. Ruling
out or drastically limiting corporate giving federally will have
totally different consequences than provincially.
Furthermore, it is well-known today,
by experienced political operatives, that the law against
corporate giving in Quebec is basically honoured in the breach.
One who believes that corporations are not very major
contributors to political parties in Quebec today could, I
suspect, be justly referred to as very naive.
In Quebec, corporate giving has
been, in effect, driven underground. The reality is that
corporations continue to support Quebec parties and politicians
generously, but indirectly and through a variety of dubious
schemes and channels that, if carefully scrutinized, would not
pass legal muster. However, for perception's sake, a blind eye
is turned to this egregious practice.
I seriously wonder whether we wish
to participate in importing a similar state of affairs, albeit
on a much larger and broader scale, honourable senators, on to
the federal scene. I think not.
Third, according to an old adage
that was widely quoted here and abroad even more than 50 years
ago, money is the mother's milk of politics. Honourable
senators, the evidence available to us today is overwhelmingly
to the effect that union and corporate contributions are the
mother's milk of politics in Canada. By limiting them to $1,000,
notwithstanding the substantially socialistic public funding
that is contemplated by Bill C-24, we will be creating a recipe
for big trouble in the future. Political fundraisers and the
masters they serve are, by their nature, very creative. It will
not be long, as sure as night follows day, before indirect
channels are found for unions and corporations to continue their
munificence going forward, if only in a genuine effort to help
preserve a healthy party system, the basis of our democracy.
Another surprising and worrisome
aspect of Bill C-24, honourable senators, also involves
fairness. As I understand the proposed legislation, it is
designed to come into effect on or about January 1, 2004, the
beginning of next year. This proposed federal subsidy to our
registered parties will be doled out on the basis of the popular
vote results of the general election of 2000. According to our
calculations, the clear winner will be the Liberal Party of
Canada with $9.2 million. Far behind the Liberals will be the
Canadian Alliance at $5.7 million, the poor little Tories at
$2.7 million, the Bloc Québécois at $2.4 million, and finally
the NDP at $1.9 million.
Is this a level playing field,
honourable senators? How can a party that espouses a just
society even contemplate legislation so patently unfair and
designed to perpetuate the incumbent regime and possibly
bankrupt or severely financially impair the other parties?
(1910)
I will say no more on this subject,
other than to suggest, as an absolute minimum, should the
government succeed in revolutionizing the money system in
Canadian politics by making the proposed fundamental changes —
even though no change is needed — then, at least, start the ball
rolling by giving all of the parties a subsidy of equal amounts.
The Canadian people can then decide the amounts thereafter.
I have been actively involved with
political finances both here in Canada and, to a lesser extent,
in the United States for the past 47 years. I believe I have
learned a little bit about how the system works in our country.
We have an excellent system and it functions well. Let us not
muck it up.
As Winston Churchill once said to
Clement Atlee after a long night in the House of Commons: "My
dear Clement, every time you see something that functions well,
you try to nationalize it.''
Honourable senators, can we not stop
Bill C-24 here and now before we participate in a very costly
mistake, one that has the potential to negatively affect the
ongoing viability of our parties as we know them and the healthy
operation of our democratic process for years to come?
As I said at the outset, we on this
side oppose the bill both in principle and in substance. If the
bill goes ahead as is, I will be disappointed and, as a
parliamentarian, ashamed. We all should be.
Why do we not, just this once, stand
up and be counted, honourable senators?
Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Will
Senator Angus take a question?
Senator Angus: Of course.
Senator St. Germain: I know
of the honourable senator's involvement in political financing.
I know he has studied this matter. How does the Liberal Party
morally justify the situation where it is now mainly
corporations that see fit to contribute, in 99.999 per cent of
the cases, with no expectations in return for their
contributions? Would this not equate to getting rid of all of
the corporate donations to charity and burdening the taxpayers
with supporting all charities? Does the honourable senator not
see a comparison there?
Senator Robichaud: The answer
is no.
Senator Angus: I thank the
honourable senator for his question. That is what we call, in
the law, a rhetorical question. I believe he knows the answer.
The response is, yes, very much so.
Hon. Serge Joyal: I listened
carefully to our colleague. He mentioned that, under the
proposed plan in the bill, the Conservative Party would receive,
and I quote his figure, $2.7 million. How much money did the
Conservative Party raise in the last year — for which
information is available — from individuals, corporations,
organizations, government reimbursements and so forth? Can the
honourable senator tell us this so that we may understand the
impact of the proposed bill on the Conservative Party? The
honourable senator would know the party's financial position
through his experience. How much money did the party raise in
the last year for which those statistics are available?
Senator Angus: I thank the
honourable senator for the question. I wish I could provide
specific numbers.
Senator Carstairs: We can.
Senator Angus: I wanted to
have a table showing how much money was raised by all the
parties. It was key to my speech. The figures simply are not
available. One of the things that is lacking in the present law,
as I mentioned earlier, is the disclosure between elections at
the constituency level. There is no doubt that, today, big money
can be given at any riding level, campus organization or X-Y-Z
Liberal association and it is not disclosed. I do not know the
answer to the question.
As far as corporate donations are
concerned, it was spelled out well in the evidence that was
given. A report is released by the Chief Electoral Officer every
year. I cannot give the exact number now. I can tell my
honourable friend that, in the party that I represent, donations
have varied greatly over the years. We recognize that when this
law came into effect in 1974 with the tax credit, there was a
great opportunity for Canadians — little Canadians, individuals,
small and medium corporations — to donate $100 and get a $75
receipt. This produced a tremendous amount of money for our
party: an average of close to $5 million a year for many years.
We had good advice on how to do it. We paid for it from
consultants. I think we were maybe a decade ahead of the other
parties. I was at many meetings with Senator Kolber, with Bill
Knight, and with the operatives of other parties, to tell them
how we did it. Corporate money follows the message. If it looks
like you are winning, you get more. Last year the Liberals got
more corporate money than the Conservatives.
However, it does not create
scandals. Shawinigan did not happen because of the Royal Bank
giving $50,000 to all four parties, or three parties, which it
did. All the banks contributed equally — they must have a
meeting — but I tell them it that is terrible that they give
only $50,000. They should give $250,000, minimum, because our
system is built on private enterprise financing the parties. If
you want to subsidize it, it is not indexed and the parties will
go bankrupt.
I know the amount given to the
Liberal Party because it is in the statements presented by Mr.
LeDrew. I read in yesterday's The Globe and Mail that the Tory
party has a $4.5 million debt. How will it ever pay that off?
Honourable senators, this bill is a
recipe for the extinction of our parties as we know them. The
bill as drafted will give a fairly substantial leg-up on January
1. As I said, "The winner is....'' It is unconscionable that
they can start off by saying, "We are giving ourselves nine and
giving the others a pittance.'' It is not good news.
I am not involved in fundraising
now, but I am very concerned that we would tinker with our
system for the wrong reasons.
Link to Senate Debates for this date
Return to Speeches Page |
