“I want to know why the committee did not lower the limit on political donations. In Quebec, people can only give $100. People should not be paying $1,500 to meet the Prime Minister at party fundraisers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think we are all starting to feel a little worse for wear—sitting here until midnight, constantly voting and dealing with closure motions. In short, we are all in the same boat, and we are all telling ourselves that we need to be strong, that we will get through this. I am going to ask my colleague a very simple question. How is it that, when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had the opportunity to consider this issue, it did not give more thought to or examine political party financing more closely? My colleague knows very well that Quebec National Assembly settled this issue long ago. During an election year, a member may make two contributions of $100. However, there have been reports in the media about fundraising events where people are invited to meet the Prime Minister in exchange for a contribution of $1,500. How is it that this limit has not been lowered?”

“People say our voting system is strong, but we had to wait over 150 years for a law that clearly bans bribes to change how people vote. I want to know why it took so long.”

“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague and riding neighbour for his contribution. I would like to add a dose of moderation to our discussion. People boast that our electoral system is strong. However, it took a bill, the one that we are about to pass, to make it clear that bribes meant to force a vote, or bribes meant to persuade someone to vote one way or another, are prohibited. The infamous “brownies” made headlines. How does my colleague explain the fact that we had to wait over 150 years following Confederation before a clause like this was introduced?”

“I am glad to see this bill after all our committee work. What is missing from it that would make it even better?”

“Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since we sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a number of meetings. We were just starting the study, and I am pleased to have an outcome like this. My question for my colleague is quite simple. What is missing from this bill that would make it even better, although maybe not perfect?”

“We should bring back public funding for political parties. Most people cannot afford to donate thousands of dollars to a party. I want to know if the member supports bringing this funding back.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are talking about democracy, and the purpose of the bill is to make things simpler. The Bloc Québécois believes that public funding for political parties should be reinstated because the tax refund basically amounts to public funding anyway. Who among us can afford to donate $1,750 to a political party? That is completely ridiculous. What does the member think about reinstating public funding for political parties, particularly in light of the fact that it was eliminated by a former Conservative government?”

“I support this bill, but I do not like one part of it. It is good that it bans foreign meddling, stops fake election information, and bans secret donations. But it wrongly stops voters from signing nomination forms for more than one candidate. That hurts voter privacy and makes it harder for candidates to run.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying hello to a dear friend who will be celebrating a 60-year career this weekend. His name is Normand Branchaud. Early in life, Ti-Nor got his first harmonica for the modest sum of $3.50 by running errands in the village. At age 17, he made his first appearance before an audience at the École Rinfret in Sainte-Ursule and then got up on the back of a truck in a church parking lot one June 24. What a way to kick off a career. He would go on to perform with the Dassonicks, Les Jags and the Cousins Branchaud, and his prolific musical career now continues with the FADOQ Band, which occasionally allows me the honour of joining in. He is also an honorary member of La Bottine Souriante, the band that has made a star of his son Jean-François. Ti-Nor is a fantastic comedic storyteller who still has a lot of music left in him. He often says that he will not stop playing music until his eyes close for the last time, but I bet he will find a way to keep playing on the other side. Hats off to Ti-Nor, and I send him my congratulations on his 60 years in music. With that out of the way, I will return to today’s topic, namely Bill C-25, which would amend the Canada Elections Act. We have worked hard to support this bill. It is good to ban foreign influence because it poses a significant risk. Electoral disinformation, spreading false information, is something we have already seen in past elections. Voters have received fake messages directing them to the wrong address, the senders knowing full well that many of them would be discouraged from going on to the correct address if they encountered a problem. I see the member for Terrebonne over there. She went through quite an unusual byelection with 48 candidates, I believe. I do not remember the exact number. It was nuts. One thing this bill would do is put a stop to that. To handle that particular situation, Elections Canada created blank ballots and asked voters to write in the name of their chosen candidate. This approach could lead to error or misinterpretation, especially when people are holding a list of candidates long enough to hit the floor. People with low literacy skills could make mistakes. This kind of thing must not happen again. That is why something had to be done. The bill would also ban “brownies” from leadership races, which used to be legal, apparently. That is hard to fathom. When I heard about it, I was gobsmacked. Obviously something has to be done about it. However, one particular measure worries us, and that is removing the option for a voter to sign more than one nomination form. I think the government has made a mistake. I find this rather regrettable. The Bloc Québécois raised this issue and proposed an amendment, but it was not adopted. There is a problem here. A voter who agrees to sign a nomination form will know that they can sign only one. This is almost like making their vote public. However, it is the voter’s privilege to keep their vote secret. I think the government should have preserved that principle. Then there is the issue of more difficult ridings or certain areas where it sometimes takes our candidates time to collect the necessary signatures. This bill would limit people by allowing them to sign only one nomination form. I believe I have said this in the House before, but I think members will be proud of my democratic credentials: I once signed the form of my own political opponent, because I believe in democracy. The guy was nice, I enjoy debating people and I want my constituents to have choices. I think that the government has erred on that score. The ban on accepting anonymous political contributions is a big win, however. I fail to understand why it was legal before. We also support increasing administrative monetary penalties for certain violations. The names of certain ridings are changing. That is the case for three ridings currently held by the Bloc Québécois. Some of our members asked for these changes after consulting with their constituents, local elected officials and the wider community. They came to a consensus. I assume in good faith that the other members from the other political parties did the same thing. The riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon will be called “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent” going forward. It is a lovely name. The riding of Jonquière will be known as “Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. Why not? It is quite poetic. As for the riding of Rimouski—La Matapédia, its member bucked the general trend and proposed expanding the name, because his riding covers such a vast territory. In order to ensure that the riding name reflected everyone in it, the name chosen was “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”. I will close with this. I am sure members heard the question I asked my Conservative colleague. Other changes could have been made, including restoring public funding for political parties. Quebec is doing it. Once again, Quebec is ahead of federal legislation. Donations are limited to $100 per person. There is no tax credit, and public funding is paid out based on the number of votes received. That takes the pressure off. In contrast, the federal system allows for a maximum donation of $1,750. As I said in my question earlier, few of us and few of our constituents can afford to donate $1,750. That means that some people with more money might think that, by giving such a significant amount, they might have more influence on the elected member in the future, even if the member is not corrupt. Objectively, we should review that and lower these amounts. That would be very important. There are other things that could have been done. My colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj spoke earlier about the size of the ridings. I just talked about “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”. The breath I just took to say the name of the riding helps us understand how big a geographical area it covers. This is getting to be a problem for conscientious members who believe that, in order to represent people, we need to know them. In order to get to know them, we need to meet with them often. In order to meet with them often, we need to travel around our riding. I am lucky in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé. It has 37 municipalities, which is a lot, but they are concentrated in a fairly small area. I can drive across my riding in an hour and 15 minutes or an hour and a half. Not all members are so lucky. Still, an hour and 15 minutes or an hour and a half by car is not next door. That means that, on any given day in my riding, driving for three hours is routine. It takes me 50 minutes to get to the office, and I live in my riding. It is clear that this is a problem. We should keep this in mind going forward. If we want to revise the method or perhaps introduce proportionality into our electoral system, we will need to keep this in mind. It would be good if the percentage of votes were better represented in Parliament. Some of the more marginal parties that still receive a significant share of the vote could be represented. Conversely, we have to make sure that we do not create distance between members and their constituents, the people they represent, because that is fundamental; it is extremely important. That is what allows us to do our work effectively, while keeping both feet on the ground. That is all I have to say on the matter. We are, of course, in favour of the bill, but we have reservations about limiting the number of signatures.”

“This bill should have been a chance to fix our political financing rules. The current system is not fair to people who want to take part in our democracy. I want my colleague to speak more about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé on his speech. He talked about how big some ridings are. I know that he is known for being very good about travelling around to different parts of his riding. Everyone there knows him and loves him. He also talked about political financing. Would this bill not have been a good opportunity to review our political financing system, which is not particularly fair to people who want to participate constructively in the democratic debate? I would like him to elaborate on that.”

“We should bring back public funding for political parties. Right now, donation limits are too high for most people. Large donations also risk giving rich people too much influence over politicians.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from—and I will take the liberty of referring to the riding by its future name—“Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. I do not know if my colleague heard me earlier, but I mentioned that the name is quite poetic. Bravo to our poet from the north. I did also speak about political party financing. I mentioned earlier that few people can afford the maximum donation of $1,750. We have to be realistic. Furthermore, people who can afford it may have an ulterior motive when they donate. They may think they will have some influence over that elected official. I am not saying everyone does that, and I am sure there are people who make this kind of donation who do not think that way. I commend them. However, the risk exists. That is why Quebec amended its law, capping donations at $100 and reinstating public funding for political parties. I think it would be very wise to reinstate public funding for political parties to ensure a healthy democracy.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“Public funding for political parties is important. Quebec uses it, but Canada stopped. I want the member to explain what Canada can learn from Quebec.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. The idea of public funding is really important. He said that Quebec does it. Canada did it at one time but does not do it now. Can he explain again how Canada could learn from what Quebec is doing in terms of public funding?”

“Quebec is often ahead of Canada, like with child care. I want the government to create a committee to study political party funding and electoral reform. We should talk about making our voting system more representative.”

“Mr. Speaker, sometimes Canada looks to what is being done in Quebec, although it typically takes too long to do so, child care being one example. Indeed, we are often out in front. I often say in my speeches that the country of Quebec already exists. I am sure my colleague would agree. We are already very different in terms of our culture, how we organize ourselves, our political culture and our entrepreneurial culture. The fact that we are already a country is also clear from our more progressive and social democratic measures. Child care centres are a good example of this. Perhaps we can see what happens when I officially call on the members opposite—government members who have the power to do this—to set up a committee to review political party funding and even the voting system. Fundamentally, what the people behind this bill want is a more representative voting system. I think that discussion is warranted. We should have it. I call on them to do this and, as always, I am open to collaboration.”

“When officials draw riding borders, they should keep towns with shared interests together instead of just looking at population numbers. In my area, distinct communities were grouped together even though they have little in common. I want my colleague to speak more about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, earlier, in his speech, my colleague referred to the size of certain ridings. When the electoral map is redrawn, there are two concepts. First, there is the concept of the quotient, which is the population base, and then there is the concept of community of interest. Unfortunately, the latter is rarely respected, much less used, when an electoral map is redrawn. As a result, communities that have no similar economic interests sometimes wind up lumped together. That is what happened in my riding. A rather major distinction is made in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Residents come from either Saguenay or Lac-Saint-Jean. Unfortunately, when the map was redrawn, they took small communities from Lac-Saint-Jean and lumped them in with Saguenay, causing an uproar. We will work hard to represent these people as they deserve, but I think it is important to support this idea of community of interest. Can my colleague elaborate on that?”

“Canada needs to rethink how it draws voting boundaries in Quebec. My own riding now includes very different areas that face completely different challenges, which makes it harder to represent everyone well. I hope Quebec becomes an independent country before the next boundary review.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate, but Canada does not take these things into account when it reviews the electoral map. As elected officials, we can meet with members of the electoral commission. They will listen to what we have to say about changes to the riding boundaries. In my case, I was very lucky during the last election. The beautiful area of Saint-Sulpice was added to my riding. In fact, I would like to say hello to the people there. I am very pleased to represent them. It is a gorgeous spot on the St. Lawrence. Every day, I learn more about this magical little corner of the country. However, that means that there is now a fourth RCM in Berthier—Maskinongé, in addition to the city of Trois-Rivières. I am a very versatile and adaptable person. I can represent the specific interests of these people, but it requires a great deal of flexibility on my part because Saint-Sulpice is part of the Montreal metropolitan area. It is in the same riding as Pointe-du-Lac, which is the part of Trois-Rivières that I have the honour to represent. It is another equally wonderful part of the country filled with people I adore, but they have different challenges and perspectives. We need to be more versatile. Perhaps we should take a closer look at Quebec’s electoral boundaries during the next electoral redistribution, unless we have become an independent country by then. Let us hope so, Mr. Speaker.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 24 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“Changing riding boundaries can hurt local communities. I also want us to talk about changing our voting system to be more proportional while still protecting representation for our regions. The government promised to do this before and broke that promise. I want to know what my colleague suggests we do.”

“Mr. Speaker, as the member for Repentigny, I can only echo the previous comments made by my colleague. There are three towns in the riding of Repentigny: Charlemagne, Repentigny, and L’Assomption. Saint-Sulpice used to be part of the riding. My colleague mentioned community of interest. Saint-Sulpice is part of the L’Assomption RCM. I agree with my colleague on the importance of fully understanding what the repercussions might be for these communities if they become part of a different riding. However, I would like to come back to another point my colleague raised, namely the issue of proportionality. How might we reform the voting system while effectively maintaining regional representation? I would like to emphasize that, in the past, the government committed to implementing a more proportional system. Unfortunately, that commitment was set aside. We had an opportunity to bring this issue back to the table. I believe we must keep it on the agenda and keep it alive. I would like to know what my colleague suggests.”

“We need proportional representation. Right now, some people do not bother to vote because one party always wins in their area. A proportional voting system would make sure everyone's vote counts and is represented in Parliament.”

“Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of my colleague’s question, I must unfortunately inform him that I now represent the people of Saint-Sulpice. I love them and I am keeping them. The advantage is that it forces me and my colleague from Repentigny to work together, which is very positive, but it can be more difficult when people come from different political parties. Sometimes, it is even harder if they do not get along. In our case, of course, we are in perfect harmony. I will now talk about proportionality. People need to feel that their vote counts for something. Some people vote for a party that never stands a chance of winning the election. Some ridings are considered strongholds. This concept exists in Quebec, it exists in Canada and it exists pretty much everywhere. In those places, the same political party always wins, because a large segment of the population has rather fixed views. I see one of my colleagues over there who has been an MP for a very long time. It would be surprising if he lost his riding. There are some voters who might want to vote for another political party because they have never had the privilege of meeting the friendly MP who represents them. Sometimes, they do not bother to vote because they tell themselves it does not make a difference. That is where the danger lies. Proportional representation would ensure that, overall, there would be a balance and that the public’s vote would be better represented in Parliament.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 42 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →