Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to say that I feel both privileged and embarrassed to speak to this bill.
I am embarrassed that such an important bill dealing with the very foundations of our democracy had to be introduced as a private member's bill, for which there is a limited amount of debate. There are few hours of debate, since there is no period for questions. We get just two hours of debate on such fundamental issues. Although my colleague from Terrebonne has done excellent work, I wish these issues would have been addressed by the government and that we would have had an adequate amount of time to debate them.
My colleagues have likely heard the saying that there is no stopping progress. That implies that things are always moving forward.
My colleagues have likely heard the saying that there is no stopping progress. That implies that things are always moving forward. However, I have to say that I agree with my wise colleague from Terrebonne here. When it comes to election financing, the best thing to do to move forward would likely be to take a step back, properly analyze the situation, and determine the basic principles that we want to put in place to ensure that our political financing system is fair and to prevent money from becoming the sinews of war and the driving force in decision making.
I would like to give a bit of background on the progression of our election financing act in order to see where we went wrong. Here are a few of the highlights. In 1874, there were no spending limits, but any expenditures had to be reported. In 1908, businesses were prohibited from contributing to election campaigns. That was a step in the right direction. In 1908, we had already recognized that companies had a lot more money than voters and could use that money to disproportionately influence the government's decisions.
In 1920, it became mandatory for candidates to reveal the name of donors and the amounts they contributed. That was good. There were no more secrets. The process was becoming more open. In 1974, the Election Expenses Act was passed. It required parties to limit their election spending and report the sources of the donations they received. Under the act, parties also became eligible to be reimbursed for some of their expenses. That is when the idea of public funding first came into play. If every party is reimbursed by the government for some of its election spending, then it is like each of us is contributing to the campaign of the others. That shows that public financing is important, because democracy comes at a cost. We often say that democracy is too important to let others take care of it.
Once again, unfortunately, just a few dozen MPs will be able to speak to this bill unless the majority of members of the House, and I really do not see why it could not be all members, agree to support this bill at second reading. That would allow us to properly study in committee not just the bill but also ways to improve it if stakeholders had suggestions.
I will continue with the history lesson. In 2002, measures were reintroduced to limit third-party spending, which, especially when it comes to advertising, can have a tremendous influence on an election result. I am going quickly because 10 minutes is really not enough time to cover a topic. In 2003, strict rules for the transparency of party financing were implemented, and parties were required to submit a detailed report containing the names and addresses of all donors every year. In return, a per vote subsidy was introduced. At the time, it was $1.75, adjusted for inflation. Private donations were capped at $5,000 and up to 75% was tax deductible. Once again, we are talking about people like you and me, Mr. Speaker.
I understand that I am naturally more likely to support and donate to the campaigns of my NDP colleagues than to those of another party. However, when we as a government grant tax breaks to those who make contributions to political parties, my taxes are part of the reimbursement I am also offering them. That in itself is problematic. The parties get reimbursed for 50% of their election expenses.
In 2008, as we should all remember well, since it was just a short time ago, Mr. Harper had scarcely been elected when he announced that he would soon be abolishing this subsidy. This was a catastrophe. It signalled a move towards the U.S. system. Not that I am saying we are at that point, but we are heading in that direction. Money is everything in that system, and the wealthy automatically have more influence than people with a middle-class income—though we still do not know exactly what a middle-class income is—not to mention the poorest members of American society. It is utter nonsense, because the fundamental principle of democracy is one person, one vote, not one rich person influencing the votes of a certain number of people. It is one person, one vote, and each person's vote must matter equally.
Following that logic, maybe elections should be 100% publicly funded. Some people seem to think that Canadians may be proud of their democracy but are unable to understand that a democratic system like ours costs money. Divide that cost among the entire population and it is lower than if one person has to pay for it all, and most importantly, it is divided evenly in accordance with our tax rules. That is clearly not where the government went in recent years, which has had a definite influence on representation in the House.
It may be reasonable to think that parties that have been around longer have a leg up on start-up parties. I am not saying that a longer history is a good thing. There is a difference. When any party, no matter how small, gets a percentage of the popular vote but is not present in the House of Commons, that means there are two problems. One, our electoral system is flawed, and two, financing does not play a big enough role. If I understand my colleague from Terrebonne correctly, his bill would not only make political donations less influential but also restore per-vote funding.
If I choose to support a new party that has new ideas and wants to be heard, and some Canadians share its ideas, how can I move forward in the democratic system if, because of the electoral system, my vote is not recognized because this government decided to snub proportional representation when it realized that that would not serve its interests, and on top of that, the funding system does not allow me to support my party?
I have often used the example of a candidate from the Bloc Québécois or Parti Québécois who runs in Westmount, in Montreal. Right off the bat, his chances of being elected are pretty low, but he can still contribute to his party's agenda knowing that every vote he does get will help his party a little bit. This is an excellent idea, and we need to bring this back as soon as possible.
Time is running out and I will not have enough to share all of my ideas. We need to find the best way to increase citizen engagement as much as possible based on our electoral system and the associated political financing system.
In that sense, the bill introduced by my colleague from Terrebonne is a step in the right direction. I am pleased to support it and I hope to have the opportunity to debate it in committee.