Special to PV
BEFORE ADJOURNING IN MID-JUNE, the House of Commons passed the amended version of C-24, the Campaigns and Elections Finance Bill, by a vote of 172-62. The legislation limits the size of annual donations to political parties, to $1,000 from corporations and unions, and $5,000 from individuals. Instead, the major political parties will now be financed from the public treasury, based on a $1.75 per vote formula.
Supporters of C-24 call it "a step towards more accountability and transparency." Another advantage, they say, is that the bill "puts elections financing into the hands of the public."
But others are more critical of this rushed piece of Jean Chretien's "legacy." The main result of C-24 will not be a level playing field; it will place new limits on the ability of organized workers to play a role in Canadian politics. It will now be virtually illegal for unions to reassign staff or to publish ads or print large volumes of leaflets or newspapers in support of candidates or parties.
On the other hand, C-24 will not take corporate money out of federal elections. As The Hill Times asked (June 16), "...will the bill be the catalyst for the creation of American?style unregulated political action committees, or PACS?"
This issue was raised in our May 16-31 issue by André Parizeau, leader of the Parti communiste du Québec, who wrote that similar measures in Quebec have had little impact on the way corporations influence the election process. "Let us remind ourselves that corporations are not really accountable to any rules except their own," noted the PCQ leader. "They will always find `creative' ways to get around election laws.... (M)uch financial support to political parties is done `under the table.' Instead of making things more transparent, the system is actually becoming more and more covert."
One such example with C-24 arose when the House Affairs Committee deleted a clause on trust funds, clearly a move to appease Liberal backbenchers who rely on major private contributions. If clause 71 had remained, MPs with trust funds (mostly Liberals) would have been required to disclose the sources before such moneys could be rolled into constituency association accounts. The deletion of Clause 71 allows these funds to be transferred by Dec. 31, 2003, the day before the legislation comes into effect, without disclosing the sources. How's that for "transparency"?
Andre Parizeau pointed to problems faced by unions trying to do things in a more "open manner." For example, the Quebec Federation of Labour campaigned officially against the anti-labour ADQ during the early weeks of the April 14 election, until it was taken to court by the ADQ for violating the Election Act. Similar actions were taken against CUPE and an anti-poverty group during the 1998 Quebec elections, for the "crime" of urging voters to be more critical of all parties for not protecting social programs and welfare.
Labour and other organizations in Quebec are barred from giving direct support to any provincially registered political party during an election if this involves spending more than $300. Introduced by the PQ to block any repetition of the "We love you" rallies organized by Anglo-Canadian lobby groups during the 1995 referendum, these restrictions have been used solely against labour and other progressive groups.
While C-24 does not go this far, it could accelerate similar processes across Canada, making it harder for labour to develop any meaningful independent political action. Since Paul Martin's supporters have pledged to review C-24 after his coronation as Liberal leader, the legislation could become even worse before the next election.
Then there's the argument that C-24 "puts election financing in the hands of the public."
Despite recent court rulings critical of the Election Act's tendency to relegate smaller parties to a lesser status, C-24 does not extend public financing equally. The Communist Party of Canada, for example, will not receive $1.75 for every vote its candidates receive.
The "major" parties, however, will get this subsidy, up from $1.50 in the original version of the bill, plus much more. Elections Canada officials have estimated the net benefit over a four-year cycle for the parties in the House of Commons. In total, the legislation will provide a $17.7 million financial boost to the Canadian Alliance, followed by $10 million for the Bloc Québecois, $6.5 million for the Liberals, $4 million for the NDP, and $3 million for the Tories. The taxpayer-funded portion of federal political party activities will rise from the current 60% up to 89%.
While the Canadian Alliance voted against C-24 for its own narrow reasons, the CPC was the only registered federal party to oppose the bill in principle, on the grounds that it severely restricts the rights of labour and other progressive forces. During hearings on the bill, the CPC was also the only party calling on all progressive forces to become even more vocal and influential in the political arena, during and between elections.
(This article is from the July 1-31/2003 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)