“This bill stops people from signing nomination papers for more than one candidate. I think that is a mistake. It could lead to fewer candidates running. It might also make people's votes public, because they will only sign for the person they plan to vote for. I want to know what the member thinks about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will begin my question with a comment. I did not raise a point of order, but the member referred to the member for Terrebonne by her given name rather than by her riding name, which should not happen in the House. Perhaps that escaped the Speaker’s attention, so I just wanted to give my friend opposite a friendly reminder of that. I do not have an issue with anything he said except that. Here is the question that I want to ask. The bill before us this morning seeks to prevent people from signing more than one nomination paper. I think it is a mistake to do that because it could result in fewer candidates running in an election. Of course, one of the objectives of this bill is to limit the number of candidates. We agree with that objective, but we do not think that this particular measure is necessary. The other measures in the bill are more than sufficient to achieve that end. I would like to hear my colleague’s comments on the fact that voters are being asked to sign only one nomination paper. I think that poses a risk of making their votes public, because people will sign only the nomination papers of the candidate they plan to vote for. That is a significant concern.”

“I want to improve this bill. The government should bring back public funding for political parties based on the votes they get. It should also lower the limit on personal donations so rich people cannot buy special access.”

“Mr. Speaker, there are good things in this bill. Obviously, we want to improve it, including with regard to party financing. The Bloc Québécois once introduced a bill to reinstate public party financing and lower the limit on personal donations to ensure that parties are not funded purely by the wealthiest individuals, a practice that often grants them privileged access. Why does the government not consider reinstating this system of public funding for political parties, where each vote would be associated with a specific amount? As I recall, it was the Chrétien government that implemented this system in 2004 before it was abolished.”

“This bill should bring back public funding for political parties and limit personal donations. Allowing people to give large donations leads to corruption and conflicts of interest.”

“Mr. Speaker, the bill does not reform political party financing to restore public funding. As we know, the more an individual can donate, the more likely it is to create the appearance of conflicts of interest or corruption. For example, there was a case where a former prime minister authorized the opening of a new bank in Toronto specifically for the Chinese community in British Columbia. The very next day, he received 45 donations to his riding, each at the maximum amount, from individuals who were members of those communities in Toronto and British Columbia. All this corruption, or the appearance of corruption, could be eliminated by introducing public funding for political parties and limiting the amount individuals can donate.”

“I want to know if this bill stops the government from sharing donors' names and addresses. If people can give up to $1,700 secretly, we will not know if ministers are selling access. That leads to corruption.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have an important question for my colleague. From my understanding of the bill, the government would be released from the obligation to disclose the names and addresses of donors. Is that indeed the case? If that is so, I think it opens the door to corruption. If people can make donations as high as $1,700 and their names are not disclosed, there is no longer a way to check whether ministers are giving access to certain activities based on donations. There are also all the examples of corruption that have already been identified.”