[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 2, 1995
.1105 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please. I see a quorum, so we're ready to get under way.
[Translation]
We have some motions on the agenda today. I think that yours is first Mr. Hermanson.
[English]
Do you have a motion you want to place before the House concerning the estimates of the House of Commons?
Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me find the motion.
The Chairman: I think the motion you want to move is on the agenda, unless you want to change it. I don't know what your intention is.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I would move
- That Vote 5 under PARLIAMENT be reduced by $1,795,700.
- NOTA: Of that amount, $631,100 being removed from grants to Parliamentary Associations
and Inter-Parliamentary Exchanges, $642,100 from the operations budgets of Parliamentary
Associations and $522,500 from Parliamentary Exchanges.
Mr. Hermanson: Certainly, I'd be happy to speak to the motion.
At a time when Canadians are being asked to tighten their belts, the Minister of Finance is beginning to see the light and say that the deficit has to be reduced. He hasn't got to the point where he wants it eliminated, but he sees that it has to be reduced.
.1110
Canadians are seeing some of their primary services cut and at the same time they see these parliamentary associations going on junkets around the world. It is casting politicians in a very bad light.
Even subsidiary to that, the funding for parliamentary committees is being reduced in the estimates at the same time that funding for parliamentary associations is increasing. I suspect we could do some creative things with our funds. If we're going to be spending money on travel, it should be done, as is already the case, through the standing committees and the work associated with the agenda of the government.
I would suspect that members on the government side would agree with that perspective, that they would also be concerned about the negative feedback they are getting from these convenient trips to warm climates in the winter and Europe in the summer, and that they would be in agreement to eliminate funding for the parliamentary associations, improve the image of federal MPs and yet maintain their ability to travel as is required to perform their functions as members through tasks that are determined to be appropriate by the appropriate work of the standing committees.
I would therefore ask all members of the committee to think about this motion seriously, with a move to redeeming our image somewhat in the eyes of the Canadian public and also saving them some dollars in the process.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): I profoundly disagree. I do so for a number of reasons.
First, there's the part relating to the parliamentary exchanges. They work in two ways. One, when we receive foreign dignitaries who visit our Parliament, whether this is the speaker of a commonwealth country with a delegation and so on coming to visit us here or others, it involves the Speaker of the House and his budget and, to a lesser degree, the Speaker of the Senate in both cases.
This business about qualifying MPs as wanting to take what the member referred to as junkets is utter nonsense. It is not true. I've been an MP long enough to know.
If the member wants to evaluate the trips, I suggest that he should go to see what is being done and then perhaps that would assist him.
Nevertheless, I can't for the life of me imagine that attending a meeting of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group is a waste of time. If members think that meeting U.S. congressmen and senators is a waste of time, then so be it.
[Translation]
I find it unconscionable to imagine that being member of the International Assembly of French Speaking Parliamentarians is a waste of time. This country belongs to two big families; Commonwealth and la Francophonie. Through those two groups, the Canadian Parliament maintains relationship with most countries of the world.
AIPLF has some 40 members. I do not know how many members there are in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am not very close to that organization but I believe there are over 100 members. As parliamentarians this is part of our work.
[English]
Whether we like it or not, once we are elected to this place, we're elected to the Parliament of all of Canada. This isn't a local council, legislature or anything like that. There is an international forum. There are people from across the world who meet with this Parliament. They come here and we go over there.
.1115
To add to that, the Board of Internal Economy, which has on it all members of all parties of the House, agreed unanimously to establish the joint council. That council has members of the House and Senate to manage the parliamentary associations. There are at least two people in this room who are members of that group, where we studied those budgets. We're having a meeting tomorrow, and we have had at least three thus far.
If someone wants to change budgets, that's the way to do it, not to go through this mechanism we're doing today and to kneecap some parliamentary associations because that's what we feel like doing.
I'm a member of that council and so is the whip of the Reform Party, and we're both in this room this morning.
In terms of the quantity wanted to be cut from this, I would love to hear what the justification is. I would love to hear how the member thinks we can continue to entertain relations with the countries that we do by reducing that particular amount. No case has been made to determine if that's the appropriate amount to cut.
On the other hand, the Board of Internal Economy met with the Speaker, and we've gone through this line by line. I can't give the details of the conversations; obviously we're sworn to secrecy. But we've done it as a board, and our minutes are later tabled. So that part has been done.
As I said previously, in terms of the day-to-day management of the parliamentary associations, that part of it, Mr. Chairman, is dealt with by the council.
I happen to have all the documentation on the council. My staff has just brought it to me at this moment. The joint interparliamentary council has had no less than three meetings thus far, and it is in fact a creature or a form of subcommittee of the Board of Internal Economy.
It administers the Canada-France and Canada-Europe parliamentary associations. We have seen, for instance, what some of these groups have done lately on the issue of the fish dispute, where we sent a delegation over there.
Regarding Canada-NATO, I know there are some MPs who don't want us to be in NATO, but I thought they were in the New Democratic Party.
The Inter-Parliamentary Union groups every single country of the world that I know of, and those are the four associations that are under the leadership of the Senate side.
The four associations under House jurisdiction
[Translation]
are first of all the International Association of French Speaking Parliamentarians, which I have already praised long enough, and the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group. Japan is our second largest trade partner. Are we to abolish trade relations between the Canadian parliament and Japan?
[English]
And Canada-United States...well, we're only 80% dependent on trade with that nation. I know someone's going to heckle that there's an ambassador in Washington. Little good that does when it's a U.S. congressman that makes decisions in Washington. To add to the good work of our diplomatic staff, I think we have to have relations with members of Parliament. They meet once a year here in Canada and once in the United States. It establishes links between those two parliaments, Mr. Chairman, of the kind no other method could do. Many of us know U.S. congressmen only because that organization exists.
Some forty members of Parliament applied, wanting to attend a Canada-U.S. meeting this year. Is it in Hawaii? No. It's in northern Ontario. Why did they want to go? Is it because it was a junket? I don't think so, Mr. Chairman. It's in Huntsville.
.1120
Mr. Hermanson: Is it in January?
Mr. Boudria: In May.
The point I'm making is that they want to go, but not because it is a junket. They could go to the same location or elsewhere on their own. They don't really need that. The reason they want to go is because it's a good occasion to meet members of Congress of the most powerful nation in the world, the United States.
Finally, there is the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Our Parliament and the parliament of every single province in Canada are members of CPA. They're all paying members. They're all contributors and they all participate in CPA activities.
I have just a few more points. For some of these organizations at the international level, we pay international dues. The dues may be several thousands of dollars. I have some of the budgets of these organizations.
If the member says we no longer want to be members of this, we just want to stop going, or whatever it is that's the argument - and I'm not sure I understand it fully - then how are you going to tell an international body you are no longer going to pay your bill to be a member? They're going to tell you to get lost. If you want to be a member, you pay the dues. We're a member and, notwithstanding the views of some people, we still live on the same planet as everybody else and we have to continue speaking to members of other countries.
I will just give you an example.
[Translation]
As members of the International Association of French Speaking Parliamentarians, we pay annual dues of $17,634. We are not able to reduce that amount by 30%, 40% or 50%. That is what it costs to be members. If I were to look throughout my papers, I would find I much it costs us to be members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and others.
[English]
No, this is just another cheap political trick this morning and I'm against it. It's unsubstantiated, unfounded, not documented and wrong.
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): I know just how you feel, Mr. Boudria.
I also will not be supporting it. Sitting here, what came to mind was when I was chairman of the Peel board. Every year when we had to pay our dues to the school boards association - there were several we belonged to, one for Ontario, which was a massive lobby group to get more money to build schools out of the provincial government - the easy thing to cut was always that amount. It was an enormous amount compared with the small boards because it was based on the size of our board. I think it got up to $150,000.
One of the things I did to try to head it off as chairman of the board was to put a committee together and go to the association to see if we could review the way the fees were charged.
I'm not saying that I agree 100% with just handing money over to people blindly. Perhaps, if there's enough interest on the part of the Reform members, we could look into the fee structure and find out where the money is going, why we're paying this much, and if we can maybe have it reduced. However, to opt out of these associations in the long run does you a lot of harm because you lose your voice in international politics. The same thing happened to us on the school board.
The thing that always fascinated me was that it was the easy way to cut. It was a nice amount; cut it out. It would be popular with the taxpaying public. They'd say exactly what they say now, that these are junkets you're going on. They don't look at all the other things that money is being spent on.
So it was a battle I went through every year on the Peel board. In the end I think those associations make an enormous difference. They changed the funding system for school construction. We've had some major impact on lot levies. It was a very good association.
I jokingly said, sure, let's vote for it and get rid of it. But you can't. I don't think you can and still participate as a respected member of the world forum in politics. Again, as I said, it's the easy thing to cut, but sometimes it's tougher to pay this and then go in to see if we can have the fee structure changed. If you think it's too much, we should look at changing it rather than getting rid of it.
.1125
Mr. Silye (Calgary Centre): First, I'd like to point out to the hon. member for Glengarry - Prescott - Russell that this motion is not cheap and it's not a trick. It's basically a request to justify the need for inter-parliamentary associations and to have a discussion on it at this standing committee.
As the member pointed out, we do have a Reform member who's on the joint council. There are a lot of issues that have come up and have come to my attention that I just wish to present to the members for consideration.
Number one, the hon. member for Glengarry - Prescott - Russell puts up a good defence. I appreciate his efforts to justify the need for parliamentary associations and apply a rationale for the continuing subsidy by the House of Commons for this endeavour. What I was looking for was this. Did the member show that there's a need for these? What are the benefits to Canadians? Show some of those specific benefits.
There's no question that there are benefits to the individual member of Parliament. There's no question that the individual members of Parliament, by making contacts with people in the same portfolio or areas, can gain from an exchange of ideas. However, when you look at the purpose of the trips and getting together with the world members, it's like a fraternity. I get the sense sometimes that what we're really funding is a fraternity.
There's no guarantee of permanence of any one of us as a member of Parliament. If these meetings are to have some justification, there should be some immediate specific benefits to the taxpayer, not just to the person who goes. Because of the way these trips have been handled and because of the abuses of bringing or not bringing the spouses - which this government is addressing through the board and the Gagliano plan, and I compliment it for that - 80% or 90% of these trips are looked upon by the general public, the voters, as parliamentary tourism. If that's the sentiment out there, and if we're representatives of the people, then it is our obligation to bring it up to discuss it.
I have said all this to show that this is not cheap and to argue that it is not a trick. It's basically just to engage in a little bit of a debate for about half an hour to find our where we're headed and why we're going there.
Now a little bit of the business side of me comes out. I'm not going to send some of my employees who have worked hard for me, as back-benchers do in all political parties, and say, ``You belong to this association. You just pay the $10 and we'll look after all the thousands of dollars of the rest of the costs. You go and find out what's out there for us. You come back and tell us what's going on.'' I would send somebody who has some authority, somebody who can make a decision. You find those people on the standing committees.
The member gave the example of the fisheries situation. It's the Standing Committee on Fisheries that should be going. We should be sending a cabinet minister to do that or a deputy minister or a parliamentary secretary - somebody who has the authority to take action when they're interfacing with the person in the world parliamentary community so we can get somewhere.
If we send somebody to the United States to talk about a flat tax, or if we send somebody to Africa to talk about voting procedures, it should be somebody with authority who can come back here to the board or the procedure and House affairs committee and say, this is what we should or shouldn't be doing, and make commitments and deals. You don't send people with no authority. That's what's wrong and that's the weakness of inter-parliamentary associations. That's what we're trying to submit here. If we want to have an association, then let's do it with the people who can make decisions and who can benefit taxpayers, not back-benchers.
We contribute $2 million and the Senate contributes $2 million. We have a $4 million budget. The other parliamentary associations pay when we go there and we pay when they come here. If we want to continue this same system, then it's important that those back-benchers who don't have the authority to make decisions and who want to belong to these associations and to go on these trips should pay more than $10, $50 or $100 for a membership.
I brought that up at a joint council - I don't think I'm out of line by saying this - and one of the members of that committee said to me, ``Well, I couldn't afford it then. Eight times $100 or eight times $10 or whatever is too much money.'' Maybe it's $100 for an association.
.1130
Let's raise the fees. If I want to belong to the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Association, let me pay $500 or $1,000 to belong to it. Let it come out of my member's office budget, because I'm going to argue that it's benefiting the voter, the Canadian taxpayer. I go on these trips and I learn. I can learn about the flat tax in the States and I can bring these ideas back to Canada.
But let's not have it subsidized. Let's reduce the cost of these, and there are ways of doing that.
This motion appears to be on its way to defeat because I think we're outnumbered, Elwin. The point is that if we don't reduce it by the full amount, then we should reduce it by some amount and we should increase what individual members of Parliament pay to belong to these associations.
Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): Mr. Silye, I wouldn't feel like Don Quixote. The creative and constructive elements of your submission will not go unnoticed. But I wanted to say that part of my learning curve as a member of Parliament has been enhanced by what I have learned abroad. Some of the most memorable learning experiences that I've had since coming to this place have come while I was outside of Canada.
Mr. Silye: What if you didn't get re-elected?
Mr. Lee: That's a risk that everyone takes around here, that of not being re-elected.
One of those learning experiences was in Washington and the other was in London. As it happens, neither of them was a parliamentary-sponsored exchange and one of them was on my own nickel.
Mr. Silye: [Inaudible - Editor]
Mr. Lee: But I'm making the point. Also, the group of individuals I met in London last month, while I was on my own nickel, will be visiting this Parliament next month for the same purpose. There is a great learning experience as to the evolution of procedures, the rules, and political changes in the world, and these are extremely important to the way this House functions. I'm sure you recognize that.
As members of Parliament we will not learn about these things in the pages of Maclean's magazine or The Hill Times because there just isn't enough depth there. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and hope that we're going to learn and be aware of what's happening around the world if we don't interchange. The parliamentary associations are a basic infrastructure of that interchange. They're a fundamental infrastructure that supports that.
I have heard your suggestion in relation to standing committees, and my most valuable learning experiences outside of Canada have happened in the context of either standing committees or other personal initiatives. Perhaps the parliamentary associations do deserve greater focus with reference to standing committees and subject areas. At this point I am not prepared to pull the rug from under what I call that basic infrastructure, but I would be prepared to work on the more constructive elements of the agenda, as outlined in your submission.
Mrs. Parrish: Let the record show that Mr. Lee did not take a shot at The Hill Times because he was not chosen as ``sexiest''. We know it was an impartial shot.
The Chairman: Neither did the whip.
Mr. Lee: I love The Hill Times. I equated it with Maclean's magazine.
The Chairman: Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I was very pleased to hear Mr. Silye softening up what Mr. Hermanson said. He refocused the debate in a very intersting way. Basically, we should examine the process by which members of Parliament are designated to take part in some associations meetings, mainly the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and la Francophonie, as well as the Canada-Japan Association, as you referred to earlier, Mr. Boudria.
That is the first point. There is also a basic fact: as a Sovereign Parliament - as the Quebec Parliament will be within a few months, won't it, Mr. Boudria? - The Canadian Parliament has the obligation to contribute to international organizations.
In May of last year I myself took part in a meeting of the International Association of French Speaking Parliamentarians, the AIPLF, held in Bangui, in the Central-African Republic. The theme of that meeting was: ``The parliamentary government and the State of law''. I had to make a speech, along with other parliamentarians.
A democratic government had just been put in place. The first general election had just taken place in the Central-African Republic after the defeat of the Bokassa government. The contribution of the Canadian delegation and that of other countries, including Bénin, France and Belgium, were very useful.
Some of those countries really need our support, I think, without arguing for imperialism, because they are still at the learning stage and at the very beginning of a democratic government. If we do not give them the necessary support through the various international organizations as the one which I attended, it will be extremely difficult for them or even impossible to develop the rules of law that we all recognize.
I went to France in March to visit regional councils, in particular that of the region of Auvergne. Like my colleague Mr. Lee, I travelled on my own expense. It can be done occasionally. We sometimes have joint projects or interests that are not always the same as those of associations and nothing prevents us as parliamentarians from visiting foreign countries at our own expense if that is what we mean by cutting, it is all right.
However, if we are to make major cuts on the basis of some genious idea that came up during the night between Monday and Tuesday of last week, I am not prepared to vote for that kind of measure this morning.
We should maintain what we have at present while taking into account what Mr. Silye said about the choice of representatives and their authority to make necessary decisions.
Mr. Silye made very interesting comments which I myself had put forward in the House yesterday about the role of a member of Parliament and the need for reasserting the value of that role. I referred to that yesterday during debate on the motion to establish a joint committee on conflicts of interest to which members of Parliament and Senators might be subject.
In the approach that I presented yesterday we should consider an evolution of the parliamentary government. That evolution should be in the direction of a Congress on the American model. I will not repeat why I said yesterday.
For the time being I do not see any reason why we should pass that motion. Still, I recognize that some reforms are needed in that area. It might be a good idea to deal again with that issue at a later date. Those are my comments on this 2nd day of May, Mr. Chairman.
.1135
[English]
Mr. Pickard (Essex - Kent): Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about a couple of points that have been raised. It has to do with the term ``junkets.'' I find that really wrong, in my experience and in my opinion.
I have had the opportunity to go on four parliamentary association excursions in six years. On each of those trips I would report to anyone that I worked no less than twelve hours a day, having to do with that trip, having to do with the communications, having to do with the agendas that were set forward. On each one I think I learned a very valuable lesson in the particular areas to which I went. I believe I was able to come back to the House and be more informed and work better with my colleagues on issues that I had no insight into at an earlier point.
So I believe it's not only a learning experience, but it's an experience that allows each of us to help others understand the problems about which we don't have that depth of learning before we tackle those associations.
.1140
Anyone who might suggest that, well, you go to Europe in the summertime and the warmer climates in the wintertime certainly is skewing something that is very political. I don't think I need to mention more about that. I believe Mr. Boudria commented on location and so on.
Still, the argument seems to be versed around ``what can I say that will draw public opinion'', not ``what can I say that would justify the trips''.
I compliment Mr. Silye because I think he did refocus this debate extremely well. I believe when we look at our relations with other countries and our dealings with other countries, it should not only be administratively top-heavy. I think there is a direction being suggested here by the Reform members; that is, that ministers or deputy ministers or those who have authority go, and you mentioned bureaucrats as well as elected people.
It is my opinion that it is an important role of Parliament and all members of Parliament, whether they be back-benchers or within the government, to be knowledgeable and well informed about the issues they're dealing with. Quite frankly, I'll say that when anyone starts to move in top-heavy directions, you end up with no voice from the opposition, no information coming back from opposition members. If we were starting to send ministers, we would almost put a damper on those people who are looking at the same problems without equal opportunity to understand what's going on. I think we have to think through the problem and some of the suggestions that have been put forward here and try to make it a balance of Parliament.
They are named parliamentary committees, not government committees, for very specific reasons. It does give Parliament an opportunity to meet with other parliamentarians to deal with issues on an equal level, no matter which party affiliation they have.
So in looking at it, I don't think it is any more than a political venture that I see coming forward, and I'm very concerned about the politics that are played with this issue. We should, if we wish to, sit down and examine all the issues that have been brought up here that make some sense and maybe revisit some of the decisions that have been made. But to say we will not have relationships through parliamentary associations with the four that the House of Commons are involved with and the four that the Senate are involved with, I think would be a tragedy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Pickard.
Is the committee ready for the question on this motion?
Mr. Boudria: I want to add something, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hermanson: I'd like a rebuttal at the end because it's my motion.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Silye raised two points that I'd like to address. One is the issue of membership fees for members who belong. It's a symbolic amount; we all know it is. As a matter of fact, in most jurisdictions at the provincial level, there are no membership fees. You just join whichever group of parliamentarians you want to join.
Mr. Silye: It doesn't make it right.
Mr. Boudria: The whole world is out of step except one. The reason why we have a membership fee is, as always - let's face it - to basically put together the cost of having the annual meeting. That's what it's there for. That's basically why we had it.
It was $10 at the time. The cost of putting on a meeting, which is usually a dinner, was less. Now the prices have gone up in restaurants, and basically it reflects that. It serves very little other purpose. Members don't belong to a parliamentary association by virtue of the fact that they're private citizens; they're parliamentary associations.
There is a Canada-France....
[Translation]
There is the Canada-France friendship group which meets. I once gave a speech to that group. But this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about parliamentary groups, and this is something different altogether. We are members of those groups as parliamentarians. Ms. Parrish gave earlier the example of schoolboards that are members of the national schoolboard's association. When she was a member, it wasn't just as a citizen, but because of her position on the schoolboard.
.1145
It is a group of parliamentarians. To claim that members would pay $500 per associations 15 or 20 times... Some members who sit in the House of Commons right now may be millionnaires, but I'm not one of them. I am entitled to represent my constituents not only in Canada but on an international forum if I can show that it is at this forum or at this meeting that I should be. Regarding the qualifications of members sitting on various bodies of that kind...
First, members are elected, including myself. Sometimes, I am under the impression that some parliamentarians are of a higher calibre than others. Generally speaking, I think that members from my party are better than others. However, it does not mean that members from other political parties should be barred from being members of those associations. Having said that, the whips should try as far as possible to select the members who are best informed on the various issues as members of the delegations welcoming visitors to Canada or going abroad.
On the membership request form for parliamentary delegations, there is a line where we have to put down our expertise. I remember the time when our colleague Mr. Langlois represented Canada at a meeting in Central-African Republic. Unless I am mistaken, a member of my party should have gone because it was his turn, but we all agreed that Mr. Langlois should be our representative because of his legal expertise. Among all the candidates to the trip, he seemed to us the most qualified person to represent Canada at this meeting. Consequently, we let Mr. Langlois go. That's why in the form candidates are asked to state their area of expertise.
Recently, for meetings to be held in Europe, in a number of cases, we have sent parliamentarians representing ridings concerned with fisheries. Those members were chosen because fisheries was very much the issue of the day.
This is the responsibility of the whips and if they don't carry it out properly, let's criticize them. I am a whip, and if I choose people who are less qualified than others for a trip, let me be criticized. I will defend my choices and I don't defend them well enough, I'll certainly hear about it. Parliamentarians request to go and whips choose amongst the candidates who want to travel to one place or another.
[English]
And to pretend that parliamentary delegations always go south in winter and the other way around is sheer and utter nonsense.
Mr. Hermanson: Give me three examples when it didn't happen.
Mr. Boudria: It is sheer and utter nonsense. How many times have we discussed the fact that there were trips in Nordic countries in the fall? We never have. Why? Because there's no media in it. Let's face it.
I went to an African country for a two-day meeting in March. It took me two days to get there, it was a two-day meeting, and it took me two days to get back. I was in Africa and I was gone six days. Did that make headlines? No. Had the meeting been in Hawaii, it sure as hell - pardon my language - would have made headlines, and I know it.
Mr. Silye: Were there any benefits to Canadians?
Mr. Boudria: As a matter of fact, the report was tabled in the House of Commons this morning. I invite my colleagues to read it.
Mr. Silye: It's not the report because everybody has to file a report. What benefits did Canadians receive from your trip?
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: The members are asking what benefits one draws from participating in a training session which was what I was doing for the new African democracies. For example, I was working with delegates from Rwanda who are trying to reinstate a parliament in their country following last year's war. I was especially struck by the Rwanda representative who was sitting next to me. During the coffee break, he described to me how his wife and his four children were killed during the war.
.1150
How does Canada benefit from such exchanges? I'll repeat what I was saying earlier, Mr. Chairman. We all live on the same planet. And in a year where we are commemorating the 50th anniversary of the end of a sad chapter in the history of the world, it is to our benefit to work together to ensure good relationships between all countries.
We find that it is always the same person who wants us to withdraw from parliamentary associations, and our military participation in the former Yugoslavia and in this area of the world, those comments always come from the same quarters and I'm sure that voters are sensititive to that.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Boudria. Mr. Hermanson, you will be the last speaker on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the discussion. I guess my motion has evoked a bit of emotion as well. I think there have been some constructive points brought forward, both by Mr. Silye and myself and also some Liberal MPs, and I welcome that.
No one, however, has yet countered the fact that in public opinion - and you ask Canadians what they think about these parliamentary associations when they travel and they're disgusted by it. Nobody has yet put forward positive proposals on how to counter that, other than my suggestion that we eliminate funding for these associations and we focus more on using the committee structure as far as travel is concerned.
The other thing that was not addressed to much extent was the unaccountability of these parliamentary associations and their travel. They do bring a report to Parliament, but these reports are often a laughing-stock and do not bring credit to Parliament as a result.
Mr. Boudria talked about this trip - I'll be careful not to use the word ``junket'' because he finds that offensive - he took to Africa. It seems rather odd that the whip who just disciplined three Liberal MPs for representing their constituents would be going over to Rwanda to advise on the democratic process. You wonder about the value of that. I also wonder about the value of his insult to northern Ontario, saying that Americans would not want to go and visit northern Ontario in the summertime. In fact, thousands of them pay big dollars to visit northern Ontario in the summertime.
There are tools that we have in place to interact with other countries other than parliamentary associations, and my colleague Mr. Silye has mentioned some of them. If it is a foreign affairs matter, it should be MPs who are involved in the foreign affairs committee. They should be all-party delegations - I don't deny that - but it should be someone who has some authority not only from the government but from their party to be involved in those dialogues. If it's a NATO issue, it should be the defence committee. It's obvious. If it's a fisheries matter, it should be the fisheries committee. If it's a G-7 conference or we're talking about preparing for a G-7 conference, it should be financial people. It makes sense. If it has to do with parliamentary procedure, it should be the procedure and House affairs committee that's involved.
Mr. Silye: And the chairman, of course.
Mr. Hermanson: The chairman, I'm sure, should go on those trips.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Hermanson: The legislature in Saskatchewan is sending a delegation to appear before the justice committee here in Ottawa on May 8, I believe.
The Chairman: What a waste of money. How can they afford that?
Mr. Hermanson: They're sending an all-party delegation with a mandate.
Mr. Boudria: Are you sure it's not a junket?
Mr. Hermanson: They have a specific mandate to come to Ottawa, and certainly that is much more defensible than if they just said ``Let's send three MLAs to Ottawa - no purpose. We need to have good relations with Ottawa, so we'll pick some MLAs from the different parties and we'll send them off to Ottawa. They'll go and sit in on committees and they'll learn some things. That's great.'' These people have a mandate that they have been instructed to fulfil.
.1155
In closing, Mr. Silye mentioned that if we are going to have things like parliamentary associations that are more or less unaccountable, and if we're going to argue on the basis that this helps me to be a better parliamentarian and to represent my constituents in a more positive and useful way, then the funding should either come from the individual or from the member's operating budget, if it's of use to his constituents, because in fact it's a freebie. People like taking freebies, with no accountability for the expenditure of those funds.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask that some of the members who are somewhat hostile to this motion reconsider, in light of the attitude of Canadians, the unaccountability of the travel and the availability of other measures to fulfil the role of interacting with people, with governments, and with associations from other countries.
Mr. Silye: Hear, hear!
Motion negatived
The Chairman: I'll add that in spite of what I'd say is perhaps a fundamental disagreement between some members on this issue, I think there's been some benefit in the debate.
Mr. Silye will note in regard to his suggestion - and I thought the one very sensible suggestion was to look at selection for members for these delegations - that there is some support for that in the report of the special joint committee on foreign affairs. If Mr. Silye cares to look at that report, it came from the special joint committee of the Senate and the House on foreign affairs. It was recently tabled, within the last six months, I believe.
Mr. Silye: Is that the one where all the senators made the good recommendations?
The Chairman: It was a joint committee report. I suspect it was the mutual work of the senators and the members of the House on the committee. I wasn't on it, Mr. Silye. Perhaps you were.
Mr. Silye: No.
The Chairman: Mr. Gauthier, now Senator Gauthier, was the House chair at the time. That's the report I'm referring to.
You will find in it a recommendation that there be a review of the method of selection for members attending these very important international meetings, where Canada has traditionally played a very significant role and continues to play that role, notwithstanding the suggestion that these trips were junkets.
I think if you look at the committee report and look at the contributions made to the discussion this morning, we may find that there's room to look at the selection process as a committee, and certainly we're in a position to make recommendations in respect of that.
The whole question of parliamentary associations was also considered by this committee in the last Parliament, and an extensive report was prepared by now Senator Prud'homme, which I also commend to members for their reading. It dealt with the parliamentary associations and had a lot of things to say about them, and you might find it useful in the context.
So while there is some disagreement, if Mr. Hermanson needs assistance in changing the public's view on these trips, might I suggest that reference by members of the Reform party to these trips as junkets be discontinued?
Mr. Silye: The public - [Inaudible - Editor] -
The Chairman: If members of the Reform party weren't standing and screaming that these trips were junkets, the public might think the trips were in fact worthwhile, because we do get these excellent reports, such as the one tabled by the chief government whip this morning. Once the hon. member has read it, I have no doubt that he'll be well satisfied on the benefits of that trip.
PARLIAMENT
- House of Commons
Vote 5 agreed to
PRIVY COUNCIL
- Chief Electoral Officer
The Chairman: I think you have more motions here, Mr. Hermanson. Is that correct?
Mr. Hermanson: I do, but they're not in direct relationship to the estimates.
Vote 20 agreed to
The Chairman: Mr. Silye has a point of order.
Mr. Silye: If these are carried without debate now or without inclusion now, can we still vote on those motions that Mr. Hermanson -
The Chairman: Yes, as far as I'm concerned, both motions appear to deal with amendments to the Elections Act, not to the estimates.
Mr. Silye: Very good. Thank you.
The Chairman: Shall I report the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson, I think you have two motions here.
Mr. Silye: Is each one to be read into the record?
The Chairman: Yes, he needs to move the motion.
Mr. Hermanson: Can I introduce both motions at the same time and then we can discuss them together? They are very closely related.
The Chairman: All right.
Mr. Boudria: Group them for debate, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: We'll group them for debate; you can move them separately.
Mr. Hermanson: I would move that this committee recommend to the government that tax credits for political contributions be lowered to the same level as charitable donations.
I would also move that this committee recommend to the government that with the exception of the candidate's $1,000 deposit, all other campaign reimbursements to both registered parties and candidates be eliminated.
.1200
I would like to speak to these two motions.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson, do you want to address this issue?
Mr. Hermanson: I'm not sure if the material we gave to the clerk has been distributed to the entire committee, but I know the chairman has it.
I'd like to bring some facts and figures that we have received from Elections Canada to the attention of the committee. Individual statistics on the reimbursement from the 1993 election are not available until mid-June - Mr. Kingsley reported that to our committee last week - but we do have some general figures.
The party reimbursements in 1993 total $8 million; the candidate reimbursements total $14.9 million; and the deposit returns in 1993 total $1.4 million.
The second motion is in respect of the total party reimbursement and the total candidate reimbursement of $8 million and $14.9 million, or $22.9 million, almost $23 million. My motion would not call for the elimination of the $1.4 million, which is really just the return of the deposits put up by the candidates or their parties.
As to direct taxpayer contributions to re-election campaigns - and that's what they are, at least for the party, maybe not for the individual - we filed some examples here in the committee. We couldn't find any in time in order to find out how this relates to the Bloc MPs or to Deborah Grey, the Reform MP, who was re-elected. But for Mr. Boudria, who has been an MP since 1984, the reimbursement to his campaign totalled $16,703 in 1984, and in 1988 it was $17,602. That's approximately $17,000 in two elections. If we include the 1993 figures, and they're similar, we're looking at numbers of over $50,000 for one member of Parliament in the space of 11 years.
In your case, Mr. Chairman, in 1988 you were a little more flush with funds and your reimbursement was $19,324.
The Chairman: You should have checked my opponents, Mr. Hermanson; they were both higher.
Mr. Hermanson: We'll get to that.
The Chairman: No, you're not.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Lee's was $18,308.
The first motion I read deals with the loss in government revenues because of the tax credits for political contributions, and we have calculated them as well. In 1988 they totalled $11 million; in 1989, $9 million - this is lost revenues; in 1990, $11 million; and in 1991, $11 million. So it was approximately $11 million a year or $40 million over the space of four years.
Mr. Boudria mentioned something about the motive for my motion being the fact that the Reform Party received a lot of corporate donations. So we did some investigation on the amount of corporate donations that was given to the various political parties from 1988 to 1992, the last year for which we have the statistics available.
Of course, the PC Party is way out in front with $41.2 million in total, including, in 1992, the most recent year, $6.8 million. The Liberal Party didn't fare quite as well, and I guess it's not considered to be quite as friendly to business, but the total was $23.8 million. In 1992 it received $3.5 million. The NDP, which appears to be anti-business, got only $130,000 in 1992, or $1.36 million in the last five years. The Reform Party - and Mr. Boudria seems to think we're being funded by corporations and wanted to increase that - got $613,000 in 1992 and a total of $1.38 million over the last five years or about the same as the New Democratic Party.
Other sources of contributions to political parties include unions and other organizations. Here, the NDP sticks out like a sore thumb. The total amount was $46.6 million. It is very well funded by organizations. PCs are at $30,000, so they do poorly there. Liberals are at $79,500 and Reform are at $1.2 million. I haven't analysed that, but that may be from constituency associations. I don't see how it can possibly be that high unless it includes funds from constituency associations to the national party. We'll try to get to the bottom of that and let you know if we're in error there.
.1205
Interestingly enough, the PC Party of Canada, over the last five years, received $31 million from individuals, including $4.7 million in 1992; the Liberal Party received $21.9 million from individuals, including $4 million in 1992; the NDP received $32.7 million from individuals, including $5.6 million in 1992; the lowly Reform Party received $13.6 million from individuals, and remember, in 1988 the party was only one year old - it was still in its infancy - while the other parties have been established for a long time. So it's quite clear that the large majority of funding for the Reform Party comes from individuals. In fact, the number in 1988 is zero. We don't even have numbers for 1988. So it's quite impressive that in 1992, $5.6 million of Reform Party funding came from individuals.
When you want to look at the proportion of donation source from 1988 to 1992 - this is a summary of the totals - we see in both the PC and Liberal parties, over 50% of their funds come from the corporate sector. Of course, anyone who has any knowledge of the corporate lingo would say that the majority of owners, directors or influencers of those two parties is in the corporate sector. They do the major share of the funding of those parties. Individual contributions are just below the 50% in both cases, with very little coming from unions and others. The NDP has very little from the corporate sector. Of course, it's dominated by the unions, the same way the PC Party is dominated by the corporations, or was in the past - I'm not sure if the PC Party is dominated by anybody any more - but individuals - to a far less extent at 40%.
If you look at the Reform Party, 8.5% of its total funding comes from the corporate sector, 7.4% comes from unions and others, and I believe that's the constituency associations. Most of the funding for the constituency associations also comes from individuals. So you could almost add that 7.4% to the 84%, which is clearly identified as individuals, and recognize in fact that the Reform Party is a grassroots party funded by ordinary folks who care about the political process.
I would suspect that if you were to do an analysis of that funding you would find the majority of them are the $100-type donations. I also believe you would find that a number of those donors wouldn't particularly care if they received $75 back in tax credits from the government. I think you'd find the Reform Party was willing to go toe to toe with the other parties if they didn't receive 50% of their expenses of their campaigns back from Elections Canada, both at the candidate level and the party level.
It seems rather odd that you are given a much better tax credit for donating to the Natural Law Party than you are giving funds to the cancer fund or to the Alzheimer people or to the Red Cross or World Vision. Perhaps there shouldn't be any tax credits for political contributions, but certainly it seems reasonable that if there are going to be some, that they be lowered to at least the same level or lower than tax credits available to us for charitable donations. I think it only makes sense.
Having given you this background and rationale for the two motions, I would like to have some discussion and the opportunity to rebut if there should be some criticism of these two motions.
Mr. Boudria: I want to apologize to members because I'll have to leave to get back to the chamber immediately after this, so I won't be here for the conclusion.
I think I get the drift of what your future summation might be, Mr. Hermanson. I know I disagree with that.
.1210
I think this suggestion that it be done without debate elsewhere and simply reduce the amount or cause this to be done in that way would be wrong. I would go so far as to say that even if there were a wider debate to change that, it would still be wrong.
This is an Americanization of our political system. In the United States there is a system where political action committees have way too much power because small groups of people have virtually taken over the funding and control of political parties. I know every now and then, across the floor of the House of Commons, members accuse one side of having received slightly more corporate donations than the other side, and so on. But the fact remains that the contributions to political parties are broad based in Canada, regardless of which political party we're talking about.
In the area of corporate donations and individual donations, Mr. Hermanson said the reason why the individual donations are no higher than what appears on his statement is because the party, effectively, was only in its infancy in 1988 and the 1993 results aren't in the document. If that's true of individual donations, might I remind him it's also true of the corporate donations, which he says are lower in the document. Perhaps if the 1993 information were there it would indicate a trend line that would be different. In any case, we don't know that for the corporate donations any more than we know it for the individual donations; it's speculation in both cases.
I don't want to see, in our Canadian political system, the kinds of pressure groups we see elsewhere. I think the system we have here now is sound, in terms of funding of political parties. Some have advocated - and I think they're from the Bloc Québécois and I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong - that contributions should only come from individuals and not from corporations. I know that exists at the provincial level in Quebec. I also know, of course, that firms give bonuses to groups of employees, who in turn then use the bonuses to make political donations. Perhaps in many cases it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Anyway, if we want to go that way in the future, let's have a good debate on it and entertain that proposition, if that's determined to be the appropriate one.
On elimination of the subsidy for the national parties, not even the Americans do that. As a matter of fact, they have an elector subsidy from the federal treasury at the national level. In terms of removing the tax credit for donations, what we have is, effectively, only the people who can afford it the most will be able to contribute to political parties and not others.
My own riding does rather well financially. I sat for many years in opposition and was only elected to government two years ago or less. Before that, I spent too long in opposition. Notwithstanding that and notwithstanding that in some elections, such as in 1984 and in 1988, it was probably obvious to everyone except me that I would be sitting on the opposition side and not on the government side, people have always contributed to my election campaigns and they usually do so in very small amounts.
This Friday night we're organizing an event in my riding at which 500 people will pay $5 each to attend a wine and cheese event. By the way, members are invited. In the fall I organize a fund-raising dinner at $100 a plate and 400 people come to that every year.
Mr. Silye: Do you get a guest speaker?
Mr. Boudria: Of course.
.1215
Every summer I organize a picnic at $5 and in winter a meeting at $5, a spaghetti dinner type of thing.
So three of those events, of course, are not receiptable because they're $5, and the other one is $100. My philosophy in doing it this way is that in each of the three counties, Glengarry, Prescott and Russell, you can attend a large social function with your MP for $5.
But in order to raise the funds for my election campaign I also have the $100 fund-raiser. I can think of one couple who come to my $100 fund-raiser where the man is a janitor and his wife has no career outside the home; she's not gainfully employed. They spend $100 each to come to my dinner, and they can only do that, I'm sure, because they get this kind of tax receipt. They can be there once a year with the hot-shot lawyer from the local town and the engineer who is well off and the doctor and everyone else. They're at the same table and they're equal at this $100 dinner. Maybe for many days of the year they don't think of themselves as being a member of the same club as all those others, but at least on that day they are.
I'm very proud of that. We've done well with those kinds of activities and we've made people contribute. I'm not funded $10,000 by whomever. First of all, as someone who spent so much of his life in opposition, the chances of that happening have never been all that great. It wouldn't matter anyway because we've built up such a war chest with these $5 and $100 donations that I have enough to fight the next election campaign and almost enough for the one after that.
Mr. Silye: If you have so much money, why the reimbursement? Cancel the other ones.
Mr. Boudria: I guess this last question just tells us what kind of a debate this is. It's just impossible. At the moment the hon. member across and I may be speaking the same language, but I'm on FM and he's on AM, I guess. We're not listening to each other, so I might as well end it there.
Mrs. Parrish: I'm normally meek and mild-mannered, but I'm very angry at this. I think it's elitist, I think it's male chauvinistic and I think it's narrow-minded.
As a female candidate I'd like to very briefly tell you - First of all, to say you can't get Deborah Grey's returns means - Walk over to Deborah - she's a very open woman - and ask her what it was; it could have appeared on here. Secondly, I'm surprised mine is not on here because I'm probably the champ in the entire country. I think mine was well over $25,000. It's because I had 166,000 eligible voters and I had to spend a lot of money to reach them.
Mr. Hermanson: We don't have the 1993 individual results yet.
Mrs. Parrish: Can I continue? They've been interrupting a lot.
The Chairman: They don't have the 1993 figures. That's quite correct. That's why none of the 1993s are in here.
Mrs. Parrish: They could have asked for them.
The Chairman: They're not published yet. They will be in June. We asked that question of the Chief Electoral Officer.
Mrs. Parrish: My nomination, which was not tax rebatable - the biggest nomination in the history of Canadian politics - cost me personally $30,000. I lost three years as a teacher at $60,000 a year, so that's $180,000, and the election cost me personally, out of my pocket, $15,000. So it cost me a quarter of a million dollars to be here.
Now, I'm not a high corporate lawyer. I'm not a public figure in my area. I am a female, and we have a hell of a time collecting money, even with the tax rebates. I had no track record as a heavy-duty Liberal. I'm a common person and I got here because these tax rebates are possible.
If you want to keep it elitist, male dominated, then get rid of all these reimbursements. I wouldn't be here. I couldn't afford it. The mortgage on my house went from $40,000 to $140,000 with a lack of income for three years. I had to work my buns off to get here. I concentrated for two and a half years to win that nomination.
So what you're doing again is the easy hit - nice public applause. You guys are willing to give up the tax rebates because most of you come from business, most of you are men, if you look at your side of the House, and most of you get large corporate donations from people who, as you say, don't give a damn about the rebates. I find that unfair.
If you want to really look at it, the people you get your money from write it off as business expenses. My regular little donors, like Don Boudria's, don't. They can't write it off. They get only the rebate.
.1220
If you want to do something productive, let's change the rules on elections in this country, and let's get rid of those ridiculous lawn signs. They cost a fortune, they visually pollute the country, and they appeal to the no-minds - people who won't read a pamphlet, people who won't go to an all-candidates meeting. Big lawn signs - let's dominate the election by smearing them all over the place. They're already up for the provincial elections. They're ugly, they're expensive, and they're a waste of money.
Why don't you do some reform that's really productive? I think this, again, makes sure only the wealthy can run, only the wealthy can contribute, and only the wealthy can participate in democracy, and I think it stinks.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: If you don't mind my completing this, because we have no figures for the Bloc québécois. That's because the 1993 report hasn't been tabled yet.
As you doubtless know, Mr. Chairman, the Bloc québécois voluntarily followed particularly stringent guidelines in the area of election expenses. We accept donations only from ordinary voters; we accept no donations from corporations, unions or associations whatsoever. We use the Quebec legislation as our inspiration.
Perhaps our friends from the Reform Party would be less critical if they had supported that altogether. The caucus is split just about in half on Mr. Plamondon's motion M-150 for the introduction of these same criteria at the federal level. When you can't go to unions or corporations and you can only go to ordinary citizens, it's rather difficult.
I'll give you an example. During my election campaign, in my riding, we collected almost $45,000 for an average donation of $107 per voter. As we accept donations from corporations, this came from ordinary individuals.
The Progressive Conservative candidate at that time, who was also Justice Minister and Canada's Sollicitor General collected a bit over $60,000 with 15 donations averaging $4300 a piece. Personally, my donations were a bit more numerous and I'm happy to see what Mrs. Parrish had to spend because I was in a similar case.
If we want democracy to work, agreeing to a motion like that won't help us progress. Of course, we had to campaign as candidate before the writs were put out because we knew that Mrs. Campbell necessarily had to give out the writs before September 8th or 12th because her mandate was drawing to a close. Knowing there was a ceiling, despite the Saskatchewan judgement allowing personal monies to be spent without being accounted for, we had to go through a pre-campaign where the money being spent was not elligible for reimbursement. I also had to cease my professional activities to go into full time campaigning even though the writs had not yet been published.
Everyone remembers that Mrs. Campbell spent the whole summer of 1993 campaigning from one end of Canada to the other at taxpayers' expense although her expenses weren't being tabulated while we Liberals, Neo-Democrats, Reform and Bloc Party members were waiting in the wings.
If the Reform Party wants us to carry on with that system why did they take to the poll against the Progressive Conservatives? All they had to do was leave them there. That's exactly the policy our Progressive Conservative friends of the time were using. Today, they're talking about merger. Our friends Mrs. Hermanson and Harper are probably in favour of that.
If we want to go back to that, it's one way of making sure there is a merger between the Progressive Conservative and Reform parties. They should tell us clearly because then we'd know what we're voting for. Of course you'll tell someone whose going to be donating $100: ``Next year, when you make up your income tax return, you'll get $75 back''.
This is a powerful incentive to participate in the democratic life of all political parties of this country. If we want to progress backwards, let's agree to that motion. We'll be squarely setting aside all of the tradition that was established during dozens of years in Canadian political life to allow the citizens of this country to control its political life. Of course I won't support those motions.
The Chairman: The two of them, I believe.
Mr. Langlois: Could you read the second one again?
.1225
Mr. Silye: The second one reads as follows: ``That the committee recommend to the government that except for a sum of $1,000 deposited by the candidate, all other reimbursements of the electoral expenses granted for registered parties and candidates be abolished.''
Mr. Langlois: Does that mean that you'd want to eliminate the monies reimbursed a candidate getting less than 15% of the vote in other words reimburse 50% of expenses?
Mr. Silye: Nothing is being said about that.
Mr. Langlois: Nothing is being said, but I presume that's what it is. Mr. Chairman, could you confirm that that is what you want?
Once again, using the same logic, I wouldn't have ran for office in this campaign. I spent within $43 of the limit I was allowed. I think it was $59,000 and some odd dollars. I would not have spent $59,000 knowing that I wouldn't be reimbursed. Two more phone bills and I was over my limit. I would have had to go with the Saskatchewan judgement and pay out of my own pocket. That's why I had an interesting campaign. Otherwise, we would have simply hit a wall of discouragement.
Mr. Chairman, let's remember this. The first pole that came out after the writs were published in my riding indicated the Progressive Conservative candidate has 61.5% of the intended vote. I had 26.5%. Popularity wise, there was a consolation: our leader, Mr. Bouchard, got 4% less of the popular vote than I did. With a poll like that one, do you think it would have been easy to find money and to go on with an election campaign if there hadn't been these tax deductions? It would have been an American style campaign. People would have dropped out bit by bit. On the contrary, we buckled down, we had quite the elections campaign in Bellechasse and the result was 40% of voters changed their voting intention. It was a volatile voting population that was just begging to be convinced. That's the job we took on.
Of course, that reimbursement is essential to pursue the democratic objectives we have in mind which is changing governments through the voice of our voters. If you want to choose governments and MPs by drawing names out of a hat just say so. I don't get the impression I'm hearing the real reasoning behind this and it makes me not only reticent but it also makes me oppose the motion we have before us.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank the committee for the discussion.
I just want to point out that I'm asking the committee to recommend to the government that we do these things. Mr. Boudria seemed to think that this was some motion to reduce the estimates, and of course I indicated that it wasn't.
I would like to remind the committee not to look at what's not there, because if it's not there, it's not there for a reason.
Nowhere in these motions does it suggest that we do anything to imitate the Americans as far as their political action committees are concerned. There is nothing in these motions that would suggest that we increase the spending limits for elections, to make it follow the American model of multi-million-dollar election campaigns, even on an individual candidate basis. That's not the intent of this at all. The intent of the motions is to bring those of us involved in the political world in touch with real life and the environment in which most Canadians live.
When a single mom goes to buy a couple of litres of milk, she doesn't get half the money back. That's a fact of life. I recognize that Mrs. Parrish makes $60,000 a year and that's great, but the single mom may make a lot less than that and she doesn't get half of her cost back when she goes to the store and buys a necessity of life. Why should those of us who voluntarily get involved in political life and people who voluntarily contribute to political parties expect to get half of those funds back? It doesn't make sense. The person who rents an apartment doesn't expect to get half of the rent back. That's just not the way business is done in this country. Yet, somehow politicians and political parties have insulated themselves from reality and expect to get a free ride on the taxpayer's back. That's wrong. It doesn't matter whether it's a carton of milk or a Cadillac, the purchaser shouldn't be getting funds back.
With regard to the nomination process and this somehow being discriminatory against female candidates, I just don't see that.
.1230
I know in the case of a lot of Reform constituency associations, which are more or less autonomous and set their own rules, they set spending limits in some cases if they felt it was appropriate, so you wouldn't have to expend whatever huge amount you had to spend on your nomination. That solved the problem very quickly. That was a decision made at the local constituency level, and that certainly makes candidacy available to more people regardless of their financial situation.
That's a problem for the Liberal Party to sort out. That certainly has nothing to do with this motion.
In response to what Mrs. Parrish has said, we have a fairly good percentage of female candidates in our caucus, certainly much higher than the NDP, who have promoted it and parachuted and anointed and appointed. I think the Liberals have anointed and appointed female candidates to try to bring up their ratios. We did none of the sort. We just asked our constituencies to go out and find the best people they had. In fact, our female candidates had a better success rate in getting elected than our male candidates.
So I take some exception to the thought that somehow we're coming at this from a male chauvinist bias. It's not true whatsoever. The facts just aren't there to back it up.
Mr. Boudria is trying to imply that Reform was funded by corporate Canada. The facts don't bear it up. Neither do the facts bear up that our nomination process and our electoral success is a male-dominated situation. I would appreciate it if the members would look to the facts before bringing some allegations.
The only reason I didn't put your numbers in the sheet was because they weren't available from Elections Canada. We just went to Elections Canada and asked them what numbers they had. We did err in not bringing Deb Grey's and I apologize for that. Had we thought of it...we should have done that. In 1989 her reimbursement was just over $15,000. She had no corporate donations and there were no donations over $500 in her campaign when she was elected in a by-election in 1989. We can verify that with Elections Canada as well, but we just spoke to her office to try to get those figures.
These are two very reasonable recommendations. Again, why should there be more of a financial reward for supporting a political party than for fighting breast cancer or contributing to world relief? It just doesn't make sense. Again, it is not an image that we as political parties and politicians want to be targeted with.
So I would seriously ask you to consider these motions and vote for them, and then perhaps we can make these recommendations to the Parliament of Canada. Thank you very much.
The Chairman: We've run out of time. I think we'll adjourn and continue the discussion the next day, since more members have indicated a desire to speak on this motion.
I declare the meeting adjourned.