Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to talk about this bill and the discussions that I have had about political financing, especially with regard to Quebec.

I would like to explain my particular situation in my riding, because it is especially important for understanding this matter. When I became an MP, I was fortunate that my provincial representative was an excellent politician who cared about people. We should recognize the excellent work done by others, no matter the party they represent. I have been fortunate to have had François Gendron as my MLA for my entire life. He recently announced that he will be retiring after serving in the National Assembly for 40 years. He deserves our congratulations.

This man is a walking encyclopedia. He knows about everything that has happened in provincial politics over the past 40 years. He was elected in 1976, when René Lévesque first formed a government, and has served ever since. I was able to talk to him and to understand everything that happened, where we started out, and where we are now.

Quebec went through a crisis in terms of political financing. The Charbonneau commission revealed the extent of the collusion and the organized donation systems. This led to some soul searching in Quebec about what to do. Quebec decided to limit donations to $100 per person, with no tax credit, and to fund parties with subsidies based on votes. After every general election in Quebec, each party receives a subsidy based on the number of votes obtained, and this is calculated according to a specific formula. This lets small parties obtain subsidies to support their operations based on the popular support they receive.

The smaller parties that are particularly focused on defending the most vulnerable still manage to do their work. Obviously, when people try to defend the most vulnerable, something that is very dear to me, it is clear that those people are rarely in a financial position to make donations to show their appreciation for the MP's work and help the MP get re-elected because they know that the MP is truly devoted to them. Those people do not have the financial capacity for that and I would never ask them for anything. I know that they are not in a financial position for that.

When parties receive funding based on the number of votes that they get, people know that when they vote, they are making their small contribution to help the party continue its work.

In our federal system, where we have completely eliminated the per-vote contribution to parties, people do not see how they can tangibly help the members or the parties. That was a real loss. The government says that it should not be up to taxpayers to pay for the political parties. That is not true because that is happening now.

When the Prime Minister gets a $1,500 donation, the millionaire who made it gets $650 in tax credits. The existing tax credit system makes is so that I, the taxpayer, am paying to finance the Liberal Party. It is inaccurate to say that, under the current system, all taxpayers are not funding political parties. They are. However, the problem is that it is the wealthiest people who decide where all taxpayers' money goes. Low-income Canadians get a non-refundable tax credit. In other words, they do not get a cent.

Consider the example of my husband, who has a relatively low income. We have chosen to do things differently. He is a stay-at-home dad. He does not get anything back in return when he makes a contribution to my riding association to help me continue my work. He pays it entirely out of his pocket.

He gets absolutely nothing towards his tax return, because his income is too low. Other non-refundable tax credits exist that make it possible for him to look for more, so it does him absolutely no good. He does not get any more money back.

The poorest people who make political donations do not get a tax credit. They do not see any of that money again. Only wealthy people get some of it back in a tax refund. Ultimately, it is the wealthiest people who make political donations who decide how the political parties are financed. It is not all taxpayers who decide. At least when contributions are made based on the number of votes received, that means all taxpayers, in theory, the ones who vote, are deciding how the money is distributed based on people's political convictions. My colleague's bill deserves to be sent to committee for further study.

There are obviously financial considerations. We will have to look into this to find the best formula. The amount per vote or the maximum donation amount may need to be changed.

I am sure that my colleague is prepared to hear different scenarios and calculations in committee. If the committee determines that it would be better to move forward with a maximum donation of $100, with no tax rebate, and a higher per-vote contribution, my colleague will be open to that.

There are a variety of possible formulas based on the main principle, but in order to choose the right one, we will need to bring in an expert to go over our options. We must support the bill so that it can be sent to committee.

The bill is currently at second reading. The question now is whether we support the principle of fairer political financing. Each member here must be able to rise and say that he or she supports the principle, that it is an important issue, and that we must look at all of the options.

If the committee hears different funding options and determines that none of them are any good, it will do what needs to be done and decide not to pursue further study. If the bill does not go to committee, we cannot hear from these experts, who can provide potential scenarios and provide figures. This bill must go further, so that we can get an idea of what it all means.

That has a considerable impact on the MP's work. I have talked to MPs who worked under the former and current system in Quebec. They say that this system works very well and that they are not spending all their time at fundraising activities. They can truly focus on politics and doing their work as MPs. When MPs are running left and right to raise funds, they are not doing non-partisan work. They have more contact with people who are associated with them, whereas when they can spend more time on politics they are available to everyone and not just those who are affiliated with their political party.

I was elected in Abitibi—Témiscamingue to help everyone in that riding, whether they are separatists or federalists. To me, the person who enters my office is above all someone who deserves to receive services, deserves for me to be there for them. It does not matter if they voted for me or not, the important thing is for me to work for them. Even though I try to limit the impact this might have on my work as an MP, I would really like to be better able to do the work of a neutral MP, instead of having to go from here to there to raise funds.

It would be much more effective if we could really address the question and study the bill in committee. We could look at whether this truly is a fairer solution that will help prevent the kinds of abuses we saw with the Prime Minister's private dinners and with millionaires prepared to pay $1,500 to meet him. I sincerely doubt that they would have paid to meet just any backbench Liberal MP. We all know that these people would never have paid $1,500 to meet the member from the back of the room whose name they probably do not even know.

Christine Moore

Transcript

Private Members' Business

Discussions (0)