Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the hon. member's motion. At the same time, I regret having to do so because if this hon. member of the government feels the need to table such a motion, it is because his own government has failed to honour its red book commitments, the commitments it made in the last election campaign.
There is no cause for alarm, however. If the hon. member looks carefully at the government's record of the past two years, he will
see that it has broken all its commitments, whether they have to do with social programs, defence policy or the red book.
The fact that a Liberal backbencher has to remind his own government that it had promised to thoroughly review political party funding shows how lightly this government takes its election commitments.
In the matter under consideration, the red book promises to restore voters' confidence, promote integrity in political institutions, and limit conflicts of interest and influence peddling through an in depth review of political party funding.
This wish is reflected in the motion. Except that, in March 1994, I launched a debate that made it to third reading, a private member's motion saying that political parties ought to be funded by the public, that they should only be funded by people who have the right to vote, which would exclude institutions, corporations, unions, non-profit and for-profit associations.
Although this would be a guarantee of democracy and openness, the vast majority of the hon. member's fellow Liberals voted against it, because their party is no different from the one it replaced. As they say in Quebec, they must look after their buddies after the election. They must return the favour to the big engineering and architectural firms, to the big banking institutions for funding them and helping them get elected.
In this area as in many others, the government has refused to honour its commitments by enacting bills or amending existing legislation.
The motion before us is nothing but wishful thinking. What is wishful thinking but decisions that have not been implemented in practice. The hon. member's motion is nothing but wishful thinking. He knows full well that his government is not interested in changing the system, because it is, to a very large extent, financed by multinationals and private interests, as was the Conservative government.
His motion should have proposed a concrete measure, instead of saying "the government should consider the advisability of reviewing and reforming funding for political parties". It should have said: "We will change this or that to the funding of political parties, for example by authorizing public financing, that is by allowing contributions only from those who have the right to vote. That would have been a concrete measure, instead of merely expressing an interest to reconsider the existing system. The member acts exactly like the Conservative government, when it tried to distance itself from its 1988 election commitment.
At the time, Prime Minister Mulroney pledged, one week before the election, to implement public financing for political parties. I remember seeing a front page article in La Presse . But what did he do after that? He set up a committee, the Lortie commission, which cost $20 million and produced a report with recommendations that were taken into consideration neither by the Conservative, nor by the Liberal governments.
If you want the true solution to the problem of political party funding, look at how things are done in Quebec. But let us be honest and recognize that some steps were made in the last 20 years, such as the granting of a tax credit. Twenty years ago, 95 per cent of the financing came from companies. The tax receipt now delivered to corporations and individuals resulted in a 40 per cent drop in contributions made by corporations. This is a first step. Some provinces also took action to limit interference in the government machinery associated with political contributions. All political parties talk about bringing in reforms, but no one takes concrete action. The Liberal party reminds us of those old parties.
Let us not forget also that putting the funding of political parties in order is in line with the Criminal Code. Section 121 of the Criminal Code clearly states that it is an offence to attempt to obtain a special privilege in return for a financial contribution. A good many departments must be nervous about certain contributions.
Reforming political fundraising is not only in keeping with the Criminal Code, it also reflects the public's desire for openness and transparency. Voters now want the people they elect to Ottawa to know whom they are there to serve. They want their elected representatives there to serve the common good and not the interests of a privileged few. They want the individual who has contributed $20 to receive as much respect from elected members as the company that has contributed $50,000.
They want, too, for funds to be collected according to clearly defined standards and used to serve all, not a privileged few. This is a way to perpetuate our democracy as it is faced with the threat of huge multinationals and heavy backers of political parties.
By placing grossroots fundraising at the service of democracy and the political parties, we place the focus on the voter. We also oblige the parties to come closer to the voters and to be concerned with their needs, since they are the ones who will be providing our funds.
More value will be assigned to membership in a political party. It also develops a feeling of pride in belonging to a political party they help to support. It also increases the democratic vigour of a society and obliges the party to decentralize its decision-making. As we come closer to achieving grassroots financing, democracy as it is experienced in Quebec and Canada becomes a great and noble undertaking that starts reflecting the true meaning of democracy and openness.
In concluding, I think the following puts it in a nutshell: tell me by whom you are financed and I will tell you whom you serve. That is more or less what we can learn from this discussion on the motion before the House today.
I also wish to pay tribute to the hon. member who within his own party had the courage to realize the extent to which his party and the traditional party system are at the beck and call of certain corporations and privileged contributors instead of being there to serve all citizens.
His suggestion that $1 be contributed per voter to the existing parties, a proposal inspired by a professor from New Brunswick, is admirable but would prevent the creation of new political parties. For instance, could the Reform Party or the Bloc Quebecois, two parties who came out of the last election, have been born without this contribution?
My point is that government financing might, by helping to maintain existing parties, prevent other ideas, structures and political groups from developing. So there is considerable hesitation and there are in fact many question marks about the suggestion.
However, I hope that by discussing these issues, we can perhaps make the Liberal Party understand that even within its own ranks some thorough changes are in order. And they will have to come in the form of grassroots financing of political parties.