Mario Beaulieu

“This bill might stop the government from sharing the names and addresses of political donors. That could lead to corruption. If the bill does this, will the member oppose it?”

“Mr. Speaker, it seems that the bill would result in the government no longer being required to disclose the names and addresses of political donors. I asked one of my Liberal colleagues about this earlier. He replied that he did not think the bill would have that effect. If that were the case, it would really open the door to conflicts of interest, corruption and so on. If it turns out that the bill really does make it so that the government is no longer required to disclose the names and addresses of donors, would my colleague agree that that is wrong? Would he oppose that?”

“I want to bring back public funding for political parties and limit personal donations to $500. Public funding gives parties money based on how many votes they get. The current donation limit is too high and makes corruption look possible.”

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. I would like her opinion. The Bloc Québécois is proposing to reinstate public funding for political parties and to cap donations at $500. With public funding, the government contributes an amount based on the number of votes received by each party. Some people will say that the government should not be subsidizing the parties, yet it is happening already through tax-deductible donations. If we keep the limit at $1,775 and a lot of employees from one company make donations, it could create the appearance of conflicts of interest or corruption.”

“I want my colleague to explain why we should bring back public funding for political parties and limit donations. How does that protect democracy and stop corruption?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us a little more about the importance of reinstating public funding for political parties and limiting the scope for donations. Why is that important for democracy and for the fight against corruption and conflicts of interest?”

“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.”

“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.”