In 1990, the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform found that 85 per cent of Canadians believe that "people with money have a lot of influence over government" and 43 per cent believe that "Anybody who gives money to a political party expects something in return." More that 12 years have passed since then. The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada (MLPC) considers that it is high time that a discussion take place on how to renew Canada's democratic institutions so that no Canadian has his or her right to elect and be elected violated based on economic status or access to wealth. The key aspect of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing), we would like to address is the public financing of political parties.

The MLPC questions why there should be any public financing of political parties as such. It is one thing to permit political parties to provide tax receipts for contributions made by their supporters. However, present provisions for reimbursements of candidate and party elections expenses in an electoral system whose outcome is prejudiced by the unfair distribution of wealth perpetuates an unfair playing field, influence-peddling and violates fundamental rights.

Speaking in the House of Commons on February 11, 2003, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien stated in reference to Bill C-24: "Political parties are essential to the democratic process. We all know that in the House. We all know that they need money to operate. That too is essential in a democracy. .... As a result of this bill, elections will be financed almost 90 per cent by the public. This will make Canada a model of democracy. It is something we should all be proud of. ... We want to give a chance to everybody to come to Parliament and serve the people. Money will not make the difference. It will be the quality of the system."

What the Prime Minister is covering up is that it is not elections which will be financed almost 90 per cent by the public, but political parties representing vested interests which "the public" will be forced to finance once the bill is passed. One wonders if Prime Minister Chrétien is mocking Canadians when he says that "money will not make the difference" in the same breath that he refers to legislation which, had it been in place in the 2000 election, would have given the Liberal Party and its candidates approximately $45,000,000 in public subsidies over a four-year period from 2000 to 2004. This is equal to about 165 per cent of the total spent in the 2000 election by the Liberal Party and its candidates.

Political Parties Should Be Financed by Their Own Members

There are many political parties in Canada, a country which is comprised of varied economic and financial interests which are reflected in political terms as well. By their very nature, these political parties represent and advocate specific policies and interests. They are not, therefore, representative of the overall interests of the society, of the collective interest. They can truthfully be said to be special interest groups, in much the same way that advocacy groups are special interest groups.

Political parties should be financed by their own members, supporters and friends, not by the public purse. The fact that political parties function in the public realm does not make them public institutions entitled to public funding, the same way that religious congregations operate in the public domain but should not be entitled to public funding. Nor can the fact that a society espouses a multiparty system be translated to mean that members of that society should finance political parties they do not support and perhaps even vehemently oppose.

Rights Violations Related to the Public Funding of Political Parties

There are many issues of rights violations related to the public funding of political parties. The fundamental principle of equality is violated because public funds are used to finance some more than others and still others not at all. This is the case with the current Canada Elections Act. Bill C-24 will heighten these inequalities. Bill C-24 will also worsen the already existing violation of the right to conscience by forcing taxpayers to financially support political parties, with which they may not even agree, to an even greater degree than is now the case. The right to freedom of association is also seriously violated by Bill C-24, taking into a new realm the problem that was created when political parties were first defined in law and subjected to regulation.

Freedom of association is generally understood to mean that no one can be penalized for forming any association they choose so long as the aims of the association are not to break the law. The Canada Elections Act violates this fundamental freedom as well as freedom of conscience in so far as it seeks to regulate what kind of political beliefs a person should have as concerns a democracy and what constitutes a legitimate political party. It legitimizes those political parties which are organized purely as electoral machines and whose aim is to come to power.

All political parties do not accept this narrow definition of a political party as an election machine and they do not function in this manner. Among broader aims would be to politicize the members of the polity, to assist citizens to participate in governing the society, to encourage citizens to become the decision-makers and exercise control over their own affairs and the affairs of the polity.

Because the party-dominated system of representative democracy equates the electoral process and political process with political parties, and equates political parties with election machines, the imposition of limits on contributions to political parties and other legislation governing the activities of registered political parties are made to sound very legitimate. The argument is made that this will eliminate the possibility of undue influence. However, it is the opinion of the MLPC that these limits constitute a violation of freedom of association. Why can an individual not contribute more than $10,000 to a political party if he or she wishes to do so? Why is such a contribution equated with the danger of undue influence over government? It can only be the case when political parties are deemed to be governments-in-waiting and if every activity a political party carries out is deemed to be a form of election campaigning.

Let us use the example of a registered political party which, in addition to participating in elections, carries out a program of politicizing the members of the polity and assisting citizens to participate in governing on a continuous basis. If it decides to build an educational institution for this purpose and calls on its members and supporters to make large contributions to carry out this project, Bill C-24 would limit these contributions in the name of preventing "undue influence." In addition, because of the existing provision in the elections act which poses the possibility of the liquidation of a registered political party's assets in the event that it becomes deregistered, a political party must worry that if it builds institutions it may one day stand to lose them if it chooses not to continue participating in elections.

Similarly, it is a violation of freedom of conscience and the right to privacy to legislate that political parties must divulge information about the source of their contributions. It is an interesting paradox that has arisen: the political system that began the process of eliminating corruption in the electoral process by introducing the secret ballot to eliminate the possibility of vote buying and coercion has given rise to a situation where any individual can go onto the internet and find out whom an individual supports politically if he or she has made a contribution of over $200 to a registered political party.

Bill C-24 also introduces legislation that will affect how a political party conducts its internal leadership campaigns, as well as the process whereby it nominates candidates, limiting expenses and contributions for both activities. Not only does this turn party activities into the target of legislation, it represents a further entrenchment of the system whereby political parties are enabled to carry out the political activities which by right belong to all electors, only two per cent of which belong to political parties. This really brings us to the crux of the problem which is the marginalization of the electors.

Public Funds Should Be Used to Fund the Selection and Election of Candidates by the Electors

Canada's electoral laws and the political mechanisms of the party-dominated system of representative democracy have enabled various political parties to participate in elections so long as they meet certain eligibility requirements. It is one of the anomalies of the development of Canada's electoral laws that the more the rights of every member of the polity to elect and to be elected were said to be recognized, the more the electoral law has strengthened the role of political parties as "primary political organizations" rather than enabling all citizens to exercise these rights. The electoral law has thus become legislation enabling privileged political parties, not all members of the polity, to participate in governance. Bill C-24 is a step further in this direction. For the first time, it will entrench the selection of candidates by political parties in law by virtue of governing the expenditures of prospective candidates.

The issue of the selection of candidates is of such importance that without it elections are rendered meaningless. It is the electors who must select candidates on the basis of merit and who, together with them, participate in formulating policies. Furthermore, without the right of recall after the election -- that is, the right to recall members who betray their mandate, who do not represent the will of those who selected and then elected them -- then the people are also deprived of any power over their elected representatives, of any means to enforce their mandate. So long as the act does not provide the mechanisms for the people to participate in the selection of candidates, the elections of candidates, and to recall those who do not implement their mandate, the people will remain disenfranchised. These concepts are very important. They are fundamental to every society calling itself democratic, if, indeed, words are to mean anything at all.

It is our opinion that the state should finance no one and should finance only the process of selection of candidates so that all those people, whosoever wishes to present himself or herself as a candidate for election, first presents himself or herself for selection and the state must fund the entire process. This means that it would be the responsibility of non-partisan constituency committees, established under the control of an electoral commission, to ensure that the selection process is carried out properly. These committees would be responsible for making information about every candidate who offers himself or herself for selection available to everyone in the constituency. It would be responsible for organizing debates and all-candidates meetings in which every candidate for selection is free to participate. Should the workers in a factory or other place of work wish to select someone from their own ranks to represent them in the election, this too must be facilitated. It must be emphasized that everyone would be free to participate in this process. Those who are chosen by their own political parties would also present themselves, at this stage in the electoral process for selection. Then the people of that constituency must in the end select no more than three people to run as candidates in the election.

The point to emphasize here is that all the candidates chosen would be known quantities to the people of that constituency. No one could be parachuted in, representing special interests which the members of that constituency did not approve of first. This is because every opportunity would be afforded to the people of that constituency to select people they know and trust and who they would entrust to represent them. Those who are nominated as candidates may or may not be members of a political party, depending on the choice of the constituents of that riding.

However, one thing is for sure: every member of a political party would have to win the confidence of the constituents, debate the issues along with them, listen to their views and so on, which is not the case today. The members of the political parties would be on an equal footing with everyone else who seeks to present himself or herself for election. Whether a candidate has money or not, whether he or she agrees or disagrees with the views of particular political parties, the candidate has an equal opportunity to present himself or herself for election. Only if the process of selection is financed through public funds, and no public funds are made available to special interest groups, including the political parties, can this become a reality.

The government would then be formed by members of Parliament who have been entrusted to govern the country according to the will of the majority, with the Prime Minister and other ministers elected by them, from amongst their midst.

This proposal, which would use public funds to finance the electoral process rather than political parties, in our opinion, would go far towards eliminating undue influence in the political and electoral process.

Conclusion

Our concern, which we believe is the concern of an ever-increasing number of Canadians, is to ensure the broad participation of the people of this country in debating the economic, political, cultural, social and environmental problems facing the country. Most important of all, it is to ensure the participation of the people in the decision-making process. The MLPC believes this should be the concern that informs all electoral legislation. As long as people are represented politically by political parties and members of political parties, which by definition represent special interests, and as long as their participation in the decision-making process in the country's affairs is limited to casting one vote every four to five years, the people will remain marginal to the electoral process and dissatisfied.

The crisis of legitimacy and credibility facing the system of representative democracy cannot be resolved so long as the problem continues to be broached from the narrow and self-serving angle of the parties in the House of Commons to preserve their position of power and privilege over the electors. The electoral financing legislation which was put into place in the 1970-1974 period and the amendments that have since been passed have all been based on such narrow and self-serving considerations. Instead of finding the ways and means for Canadians to participate in governance, and establishing an electoral financing regime which is informed by these considerations, changes to the electoral law have concentrated even more powers and privileges in the hands of political parties which form part of the establishment forces. This is once again the case with Bill C-24.

So long as political parties maintain their position of domination over the political process, so long as political parties function as election machines, so long as electoral legislation concerns itself solely with how these election machines should compete for votes, the problem cannot be resolved. Bill C-24 will fail to address the problem of "undue influence" and will exacerbate all of the problems related to money and the political process. It ignores both the experience of the Canadian electoral and political process as well as that of other countries where it has already been proven that public subsidizing of political parties has not put an end to political corruption and influence peddling. In fact, it is being seen that public subsidizing of political parties, justified with high-sounding ideals, has itself become a form of political corruption.