Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this group of motions to amend Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act. This group of motions deals particularly with political party funding. However, I would like to say a few words on other aspects of the bill before dealing with the ones now before us.
First of all, it is a good thing to shorten the campaign. Means of communications are a lot more advanced than they used to be. This shortening should make it possible for everybody to have a bit of energy left at the end of the campaign and to be ready to get down to work the next day.
That having been said, there are still things that could be improved in this bill. A lot of amendments were brought forward. For example, in Quebec, we have a permanent register of electors. Now the federal government wants its own list when it could have used the existing lists. People have been enumerated on several occasions in recent years, particularly in Quebec. Enumeration has almost become an annual event. On top of that, Statistics Canada conducted its regular census last spring.
A lot of money has been wasted over the last few years. It may have been a lack of vision on our part not to move faster towards the establishment of a permanent computerized list. We are now moving in that direction. However, that has already been done in Quebec. It would simply be a matter of making the necessary adjustments for the list to reflect federal ridings instead of provincial ridings. With today's technology, there is no reason not to proceed with these adjustments, which would save us a lot of money.
There is an amendment that would have been desirable and even important, one that has been moved and discussed on many occasions by the Bloc Quebecois. It is the issue of political party funding. It is a rule that we already comply with.
The law in Quebec limits the financing of political parties by ensuring that only individuals can contribute limited amounts. This is a way to avoid becoming the victims or lapdogs of large corporations which have the means to make financial contributions. Every year a list of financial donations, some of which amount to $100,000 or more, is published, not to mention the donations which do not appear on the list or are divided among different branches, subsidiaries and the like.
So we could have seized this opportunity to make a valuable contribution to the legislation by adding provisions on the financing of political parties. I say we could have done so and there will be opportunities to do so with the amendments proposed, but there does not seem to be much will on the government side to proceed in this way. It is not the first time that Parliament has had an opportunity, since the last general election, to vote on a much more democratic act regarding the financing of political parties.
What is the reason for this? We have to understand the dynamics of this issue and I believe it is worth explaining to the public why it is preferable to have political parties financed solely by individuals.
Generally speaking, people who give money to political parties do so because they believe in the goals they pursue. In the case of the Bloc Quebecois, a goodly number of sovereignists actively support the idea of a party in Ottawa which defends sovereignty and defends the interests of Quebec. There is a reason why they contribute and campaign. They are entitled to be active within the party, to take part in meetings, and so on, while at the same time financing the party. They therefore have a vested interest. They give money, contribute, buy memberships, because of that interest. This allows them to express support of a cause, a commitment to specific policies defended by a political party.
And what about those who contribute $50,000. $75,000 or $80,000 to a political party? Are we to believe it is out of altruism, out of charity, that they give so much? I doubt it. Most people, when they look at that, also wonder just what axe they have to grind. These are often very active people, with their own lobbyists, people that pressure the government, the cabinet, individual ministers. Then they get the changes that they want, ones that bring them results. They practically do a cost-effectiveness study-I contribute $50,000 and then I get a bit more than that back, often a lot more.
Is this how we want political parties to be funded within a democratic system? Absolutely not. As long as they are able to receive these contributions, this is certainly how it will be. The parties will be at the mercy of lobbyists, of organizations that are far better organized financially. One needs only look at the present situation, where for instance there will be a debate next year on the Bank Act, while we are living through a great many economic difficulties around job creation or maintaining a decent social security safety net. Meanwhile, we see some institutions that are in better shape than ever before, making more profits than they ever did.
We saw this during the past few weeks. Anyone who is a bit more familiar with the stock market will know that people are still investing massively in the banking sector because it is very profitable. There may be a problem at some point, but they can afford it. If you look at the contributions to the government party and add up this column of figures, it is also very profitable for the Liberal Party to be on good terms with these people.
Of course it is a lot harder when you have to do your fundraising with donations of $10 and $15, $20 and $5. It takes a long time. To collect $100,000 this way takes time, energy and a good organization. But it does force members to be closer to the grassroots and realize that they have to defend the interests of Mr. and Mrs.
Average, as opposed to a business which makes a lot of money, donates only a very small fraction of its profits to a political party but certainly expects something in return.
The system can never be perfect because these people will always try, in a roundabout way, to exercise pressure and to lobby. We cannot avoid that. However, to legislate against it would put on a lot of pressure. Those who do not comply with the legislation will be liable to severe penalties and have to pay the political price for failing to comply with the legislation governing political parties.
I have no doubt that in the end, adopting such amendments would ensure that political parties, especially the big parties we know such as the Liberal Party, or those we used to know, I should have said, like the Conservative Party and others, have to get closer to the grassroots which does not give as much but would require a better organized and more permanent political organization.
This would prevent situations of the kind that arose at the last convention of the Liberal Party which I had a chance to attend, where people slapped each other on the back and said we are the best and everything is fine, while out in the street, many citizens are experiencing problems and wondering why the federal government refuses to make any commitments and set objectives to improve the economy and the employment situation. And yet they say everything is fine.
Of course, when we get people who are more connected to reality and did not pay $500 to register for this convention, they will tell us something entirely different from what we might want to hear, but that is normal, that is healthy, it stimulates discussion and makes politicians do more and have a greater concern for the redistribution of wealth and for other areas by which people are affected.
The question we might ask, because it seems clear that it is a better system, is how is it that no one in this party-or, in any case as we will see shortly, perhaps a few-why are there not more people, particularly among those in authority, supporting the idea?
Obviously, because it would cut off major sources of revenue for their party, and they know very well how it works. It is easy. It provides a network and it also allows future party candidates to establish a network to eventually reach the position of Prime Minister.
So they look for funding everywhere, and in significant amounts. This is no longer appropriate. We are coming up to the year 2000, and we must modernize our political institutions. One way to do so, clearly, is to ensure political parties are funded democratically.
We limit ourselves to public funding. It is not always easy, as those who work in our political organizations can testify. The funding campaigns we wage year in and year out put us in permanent contact with people who comment on the government's action and on our own, when we come to call.
This is what it means to build a democratic system where people have a little more influence than merely a vote every four or five years. There is ongoing contact between the voter and the political parties and this encourages people to participate in democracy, that is, to follow what is going on, to be aware, and enables us to maintain contact and thus have a broader base. It promotes a healthier democracy.
I urge those whose mind is not already set to draw the necessary conclusions and make a move they can think back on with pride when they have retired from politics. Admittedly, it is often frustrating for government members not to be able to influence the course of things as much as they would like, because the power is concentrated in the hands of the cabinet, of those who cash the cheques and get the money. Today, they can ensure they will be able to say that they helped pass a bill of historic significance, by changing how political parties are financed.
At some future date, they will be able to say: "I was there when this bill was passed", instead of having to say: "I was in hiding" or admitting to voting as they were told so as not to cause embarrassment to their party. I can see there are many members on the other side, including members from Quebec. I am looking forward to seeing how they will vote, because, in Quebec, political parties have to comply.
By members from Quebec, I mean the few Liberal members remaining in Quebec. I am curious to see how they will vote and how they will explain to their voters that they did not want to submit to a democratic financing system, when this is the norm we set for ourselves in Quebec a long time ago.
This issue was settled through legislation passed by the Lévesque government. Of course, here, things move more slowly. We sovereignists would be quite proud to make it our legacy, before leaving this Parliament, to help modernize democracy, through public financing. I am pleased to see some members nodding. Perhaps all it would take is ten or fifteen minutes more to turn a few of them around.
I will conclude by urging those few progressive Liberals opposite to support the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois to put in place a democratic public financing system. I think that they would be quite proud of themselves for doing so when they go to bed tonight.
