Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments the hon. member just made. It indicates a debate and perhaps a bit of a difference of opinion on this matter.
I am pleased to add my comments to the debate. It represents an opportunity for the government to begin to help restore the faith of Canadians in the electoral process.
In the past we have seen Parliament held hostage to a variety of special interest groups by their contributions. They have found support in some or all of the recognized political parties of the past. My comments are really intended on a non-partisan basis.
Special interest groups have found support in some or all of the recognized political parties. The interests of Canadians have been neglected by politicians appeasing the demands of large financial contributors. A wide spectrum of demands from business, unions and even federally funded special interest groups are regularly brought to members and to the government itself.
In politics one soon learns that nothing is free. Whatever is accepted will have an invoice following along sooner or later. The larger the gift the larger the price tag on it.
The premise of this motion is not new. As the hon. member for Richelieu has already pointed out, the province of Quebec has had similar legislation in place for over 15 years. There is a difference. Quebec's contribution limit is $3,000. Even with this $3,000 limit Quebec's provincial Liberal Party was able to raise $6.5 million during the 1986-87 campaign.
Shortage of campaign funds has not been a problem. Instead Quebec has been able to add real credibility to its legislature in these reforms.
John Parisella, director general of the Quebec Liberal Party at the time supported this contribution limit by claiming: "There is no way a government is going to sell its soul for $3,000. No individual company has a hold on us. Nobody owns this government".
One has to look no further than the current New Democratic Party government in British Columbia to understand the danger of political manipulation. Unions have been major supporters of NDP campaigns. Since the last provincial election the unions have really hit pay dirt. Only unionized companies are permitted to bid for most government contracts. Also businesses that have solid records of treating their employees fairly are now being forced to accept union intervention without their employees even having a vote. We cannot permit special interests to dominate the political agenda simply because they give money to a political party.
François Gérin, who the member has already mentioned, a Quebec Conservative during the last two terms of government was the main advocate for federal reform of political contributions. He argued that a party's acceptance of large contributions was a conflict of interest that brought the whole political process into question. He understood the perception of his constituents as he said: "Someone who works all year to earn $15,000 and has a family of three cannot understand that somebody will give $25,000 and ask nothing for it". The average family income in his riding at that time was only $15,000.
François Gérin demonstrated in his own riding the capability to run a campaign without huge contributions during a non-election period. With only 23 per cent party support on the national opinion polls, his constituency association was able to raise three times as much money as he needed to fund an election. In his case he used a strict limit of $1,000 maximum contribution.
Despite his many attempts, Mr. Gérin was never able to convince the Conservative government to change the Canada Elections Act. He did convince the Quebec caucus of the Conservative Party to adopt this policy. In the 1988 general election every member of the Quebec caucus took a vow to accept only personal contributions.
The results were quite surprising: Conservative candidates won 62 of the 75 seats, a greater success than even the Bloc Quebecois received in the last federal election. While the Conservatives received only 43 per cent of the popular support in 1988 across Canada, in Quebec that percentage was 51 per cent. In his own riding Gérin received a decisive 60 per cent of voter support. A significant amount of this additional voter support resulted from the increased interaction he had with his constituents.
Limiting the size of contributions means depending on broader support; depending on a broader support base requires more interaction with the voters. With that, financial support becomes a more significant demonstration of an electoral mandate.
As matters now stand, voting at the polls can often be a last minute decision resulting in a luck of the draw election win. In such instances those voting may give little real consideration to the value of their vote.
The opposite can be true by candidates and their parties reaching out to include even those who can make only the smallest contributions. Those considering supporting a campaign with their money will take the time to develop an understanding of the issues, the local candidates and the political parties they represent.
Corporate and personal tax considerations may vary greatly. Regardless of who makes the contribution, the same tax credit is realized. But this tax credit is of limited value to an individual, whereas after claiming a tax credit a corporation can, and corporations have, written off larger amounts as advertising or promotion expenses.
This has resulted in leaders of business, unions, special interest groups and lobbyists using their influence and other people's money to contribute to political campaigns instead of using their own personal money.
The intention of this motion is to prevent this abuse. A few powerful individuals are often in positions to make decisions that are paid for by using other people's money without their consent.
Trade unions have freely spent money raised through membership dues to support particular parties. In the case of publicly held corporations, what could have been shareholders' profits have been used to support a particular political party. Money donated to special interest groups for special purposes is sometimes re-routed to fund political campaigns.
This motion would allow only individual constituents the opportunity to make a political contribution to any legitimate party or nominated candidate to a limit of $5,000.
Elections are intended to democratically elect governments that best represent the desires of the people. We must not permit powerful individuals using other people's money to dominate the political agenda or the democratic process.
Limiting the amount any individual can contribute will give a truer representation of a political party's popular support.