moves:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of reviewing and reforming funding for political parties.
Madam Speaker, the present system of financial contributions to political parties contains deficiencies that must be dealt with. All too often, we hear people say that large companies run the country and that they are the ones who can benefit the most from their financial support for political parties. We hear that constantly.
As we know, such a perception is very harmful to democracy and this is why I believe it is necessary to look into certain changes that need to be made.
According to data obtained for the four last years including the election campaign of 1993, the existing system costs the state some 30 millions dollars annually. Of course, I have all this information at hand.
Since taxpayers have to pay for the system in one way or another, we propose the following solution: the state should contribute one dollar for every individual. In this way, democracy would be better served.
This solution has many advantages. I will give you a few examples. Such a system would be the most democratic form of funding for political parties. Of course, every one would be equal. Members of Parliament would no longer have to collect funds for general elections. As we all know, this requires a lot of time and effort, and political parties themselves have to spend money to organize public fundraising.
The cost to the state would actually be lower, because the figures I quoted were very conservative. I have indeed demonstrated that the government would pay less in such a system.
This will put to rest the public perception that this is a slush fund, because it is not good for the public to believe such a thing. Politicians or parliamentarians would not owe anyone anything.
Time has come to review the system to ensure the proper functioning of democracy, so that we can, once and for all, be free to do our job without having our hands tied.
The democratic principle demands that every citizen be accorded complete equality by the process which selects the people's representatives. Canada's present electoral system violates this principle in a fundamental way, for it is privately financed.
When private interests are involved in party financing the political process deteriorates into a mere approximation of democracy. The participation of corporations, unions and private individuals in the political process obviously is inevitable and indispensable in many ways but should in no way include the financing of political parties.
In my view the repair of this structural failure is of paramount importance. Any country which claims serious adherence to democratic ideals should publicly finance its political parties by a mechanism which directly relates their financial support to their political support.
After looking at this present system and then at individual financing options I present an inexpensive and flexible public financing mechanism. Here are at least three objectives. The present financing of political parties makes a mockery of the
cornerstone of our democracy that every citizen should be accorded complete equality by the process which selects the people's representatives. It allows private organizations which have no right to vote at all to indirectly cast hundreds of ballots by financial support to a particular political party.
It restricts flexibility on policy issues since political parties must give greater consideration to the largest supporters. This is incompatible with the concept of a truly representative democracy. Political parties should be solely responsible to their members and obviously to the public.
Shareholders of corporations and members of unions do not necessarily support donations made on their behalf. Party financing by private organizations is a clear distortion of the democratic process. However, in a free and democratic society private individuals should have the right to contribute their own personal funds to the party of their choice.
That sounds logical. Nevertheless there are at least three fundamental objections to this option. It would require political parties to spend a greatly increased and inordinate amount of their time in fundraising. This is an inappropriate role for the people's representatives and also is inefficient.
The proper function of a political party is to structure policy, not fundraising. It does not address the primary inequity. Any privately financed democracy, whether financed by private organizations or by private individuals, will have its fundamentally democratic factor distorted. This situation is abnormal and unacceptable in our system. It simply cannot be protected from abuse.
In the United States it is common practice for every member of a corporation's top management to simultaneously contribute to a party or candidate the maximum donation allowed by an individual, thereby in effect making a corporate donation.
The argument for individual financing is an incorrect generalization of the principle that in a free and democratic society each individual should have the right to support the party of his or her choice. This right is inalienable but should not extend to the use of personal wealth. The right to support the party of our choice includes the right to vote for the party of our choice and to work for the party of our choice. However, merely signing a cheque seems too easy and unfair to those who do not have any great amount of money to contribute.
The mechanism is very simple. I will outline a simple, flexible and inexpensive democratic public financing mechanism that will certainly make the system much more fair and equitable.
We would eliminate all private financing of political parties; establish a party financing fund by an annual allocation of $1 per voter from general revenues; distribute a portion of the fund among the registered political parties proportional to popular vote; distribute the other portion of the fund among the registered political parties in existence.
The cost is negligible. One dollar per voter per year is a small amount for the support of a democratic election. Furthermore, the annual cost to the treasury would actually be less than what it is today, less than the $30 million that it costs. The method of the distribution is flexible and democratic.
The distribution of the first part of the fund by proportional vote directly ties financial support to political support, ensuring that parties with greater political support receive greater financial support.
The distribution of the second part of the fund equally provides a counterbalance that moderates the effect of large majorities, ensuring that parties with less support receive sufficient funds to effectively communicate the policies to the citizenry.
To conclude, some obvious conclusions come to mind. Public funding is the only truly democratic way of financing political parties. At present, political party financing is a mix of personal tax credits, corporate tax deductions and contributions made by the government to each candidate who gets at least 15 per cent of the vote in an election.
Public funding will force political parties to account for the use made of their funds. Political party funding will spare the political parties the need to raise funds, which is very time and energy consuming. This way, political parties can devote their time to developing policies. Finally, it will greatly improve the way the public perceives politicians, political parties and politics.
This is basically what I had to say about the need to make changes in our political system with respect to funding of political parties. If any other member wishes to comment on this, I will welcome their comments, and if they have questions to put to me, I will gladly answer them.
