House of Commons Hansard #106 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was election.

Topics

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those in favour will please say yea.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We will now proceed to Group No. 6.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Bloc

François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC

moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 23 on page 33 the following new Clause:

"64. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 301:

301.1 Chapter II of Title III of the Quebec Election Act applies to this Act, with such modifications as the circumstances require."

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 38 the following new Clause:

"86.1. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 331:

  1. (1) Before an amendment to this Act is passed, the Governor in Council shall table a draft Bill in the House of Commons.

(2) Within sixty days after the draft Bill is tabled, the Governor in Council shall consult the recognized political parties in the House of Commons."

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-63, in Clause 87, be amended by deleting lines 5 and 6 on page 39.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-63, in Clause 88, be amended by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 40 with the following:

"88. Section 4 of the Referendum Act is replaced by the following:

  1. No proclamation may be issued a ) when the House of Commons stands dissolved; or b ) before, or more than forty-five days after, the text of the referendum question has been approved under section 5 or 5.1.

  2. Sections 8 and 9 of the Act are repealed."

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-63, in Clause 89, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 40 with the following:

"89. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 5:

5.1 (1) A referendum question shall be approved by a majority of the provinces that includes a ) Ontario; b ) Quebec; c ) British Columbia; d ) two or more of the Atlantic provinces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined populations of at least fifty per cent of the population of all the Atlantic provinces; and e ) two or more of the Prairie provinces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined populations of at least fifty per cent of the population of all the Prairie provinces.

(2) In this section,

"Atlantic provinces" means the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland;

"Prairie provinces" means the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta."

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 40 the following new Clause:

"91. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 16:

16.1(1) Chapter II of Title III of the Quebec Election Act (financing of political parties) applies to this Act, with such modifications as the circumstances require.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, a reference to "party" in the Quebec Election Act shall be read as a reference to "referendum committee"."

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-63, in Clause 92, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 40 with the following:

"before it are replaced by the following:

  1. (1) The Government of Canada shall not give effect to a vote on a referendum question or take any action whatsoever with respect to that vote unless a majority of the legislatures of the provinces have first given their consent, and this majority shall include a ) Ontario; b ) Quebec; c ) British Columbia; d ) two or more of the Atlantic provinces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined populations of at least fifty per cent of the population of all the Atlantic provinces; and e ) two or more of the Prairie provinces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined populations of at least fifty per cent of the population of all the Prairie provinces.

(2) In this section,

"Atlantic provinces" means the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland;

"Prairie provinces" means the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta."

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 40 the following new Clause:

"93. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 39:

39.1(1) The provisions of an Act of a legislature respecting a referendum or referendums prevail over any inconsistent provisions in this Act.

(2) Where the result of a referendum held under an Act of a legislature respecting a referendum or referendums differs from the result of a referendum held under this Act, the result obtained under the Act of the legislature shall prevail."

Madam Speaker, since there are eight motions in this group, I will call upon the generosity of my colleagues to speak on items that I will certainly overlook. A little earlier, my colleague from Calgary West gave an interesting and intelligent speech on the concept of distinct society.

If there is one thing we can be sure of when the hon. member for Calgary West addresses a problem, it is that he will ask the real question. There were no false pretence or political dodging when he spoke on the concept of distinct society and on what it could represent.

The first intrinsic notion we refer to when we speak of a distinct society is the one outlined in the 1987 Meech Lake agreement. What was this notion of distinct society? It was a clause that would have been entrenched in the Canadian Constitution affirming the distinct nature of Quebec. This clause in the Constitution would have had precedence over the distribution of powers between the federal government and the provinces. Any interpretation of the Constitution would have taken into account the notion that Quebec is a distinct society.

This has nothing to do with the unfortunate motion mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm and passed by a majority in this House on November 29, 1995, as part of an exercise in wishful thinking on the recognition of distinct society. We see today that even the bill now before us does not reflect the civil law concept of domicile. We must take these things into account.

But the concept of distinct society is everywhere in this group of motions. What do we want to do? First, we want the Canada Elections Act to contain provisions similar to those in the Quebec Elections Act on the financing of political parties to be sure that, at the federal level as in Quebec, only eligible voters can fund political parties. We want to ensure that large and small corporations, unions, and lobby groups can no longer legally fund political parties.

The chief electoral officer of Quebec, Pierre F. Côté, when he appeared before the House Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, had given a clear answer to the hon. member for Calgary West. What is important in Quebec's election bill is to define properly what we want. Shall it be one person one vote, or one buck one vote?

In Quebec, in the last 20 years-it will be 20 years next year-all governments have respected a principle now well established in Quebec's political custom, a principle according which no corporation, union or pressure group can provide funding for a political party. Only an eligible voter can do it, to a maximum of $3,000, according to Quebec's laws.

It took some courage for a newly elected government to undertyake such a reform, in 1977, because it is not easy to organize funding by the population, to go and visit your constituents week after week, to ask them how they judge your performance, to ask them also to support you financially.

The recall procedure, for the Bloc Quebecois as well as other Quebec political parties, is a year-long process because you sound out your constituents quite well when you ask them one by one to contribute $20, $50 or $100, and not $60,000, like the hon. member for Bourassa mentioned earlier.

You would need 600 constituents contributing $100 each to equal a big $60,000 cheque donated by a company. It is much easier. But then debts can be called in. It is a lot more difficult for a political party to say no to someone who donated heavily to its campaign fund than to someone who made more modest contributions. This is the purpose of one of our amendments.

We have moved that amendment to avoid the sort of hurried debates we are having today, where the only consultations there were were made at the last minute and where everyone is running about every which way to see if it would not possible to obtain an eleventh hour concession that could make the bill acceptable and save a few clauses with cosmetic changes, when in fact the whole process was flawed from the start and Elections Canada and the government ventured dangerously close to conflict of interest, if they did not actually have one.

If the amendment we are proposing today had been adopted, the House would get advance notice when the government wants to amend the Elections Act. Political parties should be consulted before the introduction of a bill on election legislation. As I will repeat tomorrow at third reading of Bill C-63, neither the official opposition nor the Reform Party were consulted. It is a partisan bill that will lead to a partisan decision.

We will also propose to amend the referendum legislation, Bill C-110, which gives a veto to almost everybody and which at the time I called a big fat chicken with legs for everybody, so that the veto clearly applies to referendums.

This is to say that before calling a federal referendum, the federal government will have to have the approval of the regions and the provinces, including Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, two western provinces representing 50 per cent of the population and two Atlantic provinces representing 50 per cent of the popula-

tion. As for the question to be asked, the approval of the provinces will be required.

Second, there will have to be agreement regarding the results. The federal government will not be able to give effect to a vote on a referendum question if any of the groups I mentioned has objected to the question.

Finally, we propose that, if the result of a referendum held under provincial legislation differs from the result of a referendum held under federal legislation, the one held under provincial legislation will prevail, thus demonstrating that it is the provinces that created the federal government and not the reverse, in case this has been forgotten.

My grandfather would puff on his clay pipe and tell me to remember that confederation was the creation of the provinces, that the federal government was not responsible for our existence. Almost everyone in Canada has heard once in his life that the federal government was a creation of the provinces.

We have created a monster of such proportions that it now thinks it created everything, when the reverse is in fact true. It was the provinces that gave birth not to Canada but to the constitutional government that we know today. Contrary to a certain widely held philosophy, Canada was not created in 1867. It existed before that.

It existed when your Acadian ancestors, Madam Speaker, were there, long before the constitutional order of 1867 existed, long before the Europeans arrived. The First Nations were here when Canada came to be. To think that Canada has been in existence only since 1867 or that it will fall apart because of a constitutional reform is to misjudge tradition, the history that forged the soul of this people. It will withstand another constitutional reform.

My colleagues can add to what I have said. I have tried to deal with the eight motions in Group No. 6, which cover the Bloc Quebecois's major amendments. I would again like to congratulate the member for Calgary West for his solid understanding of the problem I am raising concerning distinct society. He is not in agreement with me, and I am not in agreement with him. But at least he is asking the real questions and giving a genuine response, as he sees it, unlike the people across the way, who pretend not to understand the problems. They sidestep the issue, because they are too afraid of what lies beneath the surface.

It is true that distinct society is a term that gives Quebec greater powers, that makes it possible to interpret the Canadian Constitution so that the division of powers provided in sections 91 and 92 of the present Constitution would be set aside and precedence given to an interpretive clause of this sort. In this regard, the hon. member for Calgary West is right.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Reform

Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB

Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak on the Group No. 6 amendments to Bill C-63. All eight of these motions have been proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.

As the hon. member for Bellechasse has indicated, these motions cover a wide range of subject matter and are obviously of major significance. I would share his concerns about the entire process here. It does seem to be unfortunate that in reviewing elections legislation we are essentially restricted to discussing matters of this scope and importance in only a few minutes before we move on to voting on the bill on a timetable imposed by the Liberal government.

I am very concerned about the partisanship in this. It is something we had hoped to address. As I have said repeatedly in this debate, we had hoped to be able to support this legislation but we are still not in a position where we can do that.

Having said that I do have grave reservations about most of these amendments, the one motion which I believe my party can support is Motion No. 29. Motion No. 29 goes to the heart of this concern about partisanship. This particular motion by the Bloc Quebecois would require the government to consult the House and specifically the opposition parties for future amendments to this act. That has been a practice in the past and I think it is a practice we should continue and in a serious way get back to.

I will reiterate what the member for Bellechasse said on Friday. I think it is ridiculous in a mature and democratic country that elections legislation would be imposed at the end of a Parliament. The rules of the game change by only one player, presumably for its own benefit. That is not the way elections law works in an advanced democratic society.

Nevertheless, I do want to take some time to address some of these other motions. These other motions have to do with a range of subjects but generally speaking, what they attempt to do in my opinion is to impose much of Quebec's electoral legislation and Quebec's election practices on the federal government. This is a much more radical view of federalism than either I or my party would subscribe to.

In this House there are three very different views of Confederation which come out over and over again.

One is the view of the Bloc Quebecois which on a certain level has been not just the view of two founding nations, but a view that this is very much a confederal arrangement and everything that goes on federally is really a creature of the provinces. In effect the

federal government really should only communicate with citizens through the provinces. That is one of the extreme positions.

The other extreme position is the historic position of the Liberal Party which is very much a centralist position. I know in Quebec the Liberals refer to themselves as federalists. This often makes the debate confusing because in fact they are not really federalists. The Liberal Party historically has been a centralist party which views the provinces as little more than units of administration, but not as entities that have sovereignty in their own areas of jurisdiction, which in fact we would maintain is the case under the Constitution.

The Reform Party view is of a federal state where both the provinces and the federal government are entities with clear powers in their own jurisdictions. Both have rights to communicate with their citizens directly.

I will deal with these amendments randomly because I want the House to understand how radical some of them are. For example, Motion No. 32 would amend the referendum act so that the regions would have a veto over a referendum question posed by the federal government. The formula laid out here is the five region formula that was in the government's bill on constitutional referendums, Bill C-110, at the end of the last session.

This goes much further than that. Bill C-110 was a formula for the approval of constitutional amendments. This is not a formula for the approval of a referendum question. We all realize the referendum act at the federal level, as in Quebec, is merely a consultative device. This is an approval process for a question to be asked of the people of Canada by the federal government. I do think this is an extreme position by the Bloc Quebecois. My Bill C-341 challenges the belief that the Government of Quebec can ask a binding question that concerns the future not just of Quebec but of all of Canada in Quebec only and on its own terms.

Yet this particular motion tries to put in the elections act and the referendum act a motion which would proscribe the ability of the federal government to ask a question of Canadians without the prior approval of the Quebec government. I cannot think of a motion that someone could put in here that is more unacceptable to Canadians outside of Quebec. In fact it is unacceptable not just in the case of Quebec; to me, the idea that the Government of Ontario or the Government of British Columbia could veto the wording of a referendum question across the country is absolutely outrageous.

The federal government has referred some of the Quebec government's constitutional agenda to the supreme court. There is a need in the opinion of the Reform Party for the federal government to be able to pose direct questions to the people of Quebec on the issue of sovereignty and separation if we are looking at another referendum down the road.

In the past, the Government of Quebec has not only posed questions which we believe have been fundamentally misleading, but also it has posed questions and has an agenda behind those questions which is clearly illegal and unconstitutional under Canadian law. It is more than appropriate, in fact it is essential in our view, that the federal government not only retain but also exercise its right to consult the people of Quebec directly on their real opinions on things like the issue of separation and on notions like a unilateral declaration of independence. I cannot imagine a proposed amendment to this bill that would be more unacceptable than this one.

Motion No. 35 is similar to Motion No. 32. Motion No. 33, like Motion No. 24, is a motion of wide application. It would effectively impose wide sections of Quebec electoral law upon the federal government, specifically those sections dealing with party financing. It would apply the financing provisions of Quebec's electoral law not just to federal elections but to federal referendums as well.

Let me go over some of the provisions. A lot of them concern matters which are already covered in federal elections law such as the role of auditors and party agents in making financial reports.

Some of these rules have broad sweeping content. For example, these are the rules that restrict fundraising to individuals. Corporate bodies, unions and organizations cannot contribute to political parties. It provides for public financing of political parties directly, based on percentage of vote, and deems what kind of non-financial contributions count as political contributions. It restricts the ability of people to contribute to political parties to no more than $3,000 in a single year.

Some of these notions I could support. I have never had a problem with the concept that only voters should contribute to political parties. However, these amendments are of a wide and sweeping nature and we do not have time to debate them. Suffice it to say there would not be anywhere near consensus in the House on some of these restrictions.

The chief electoral officer of Quebec explained to the committee that there is a history behind the development of some of the electoral practices in Quebec. They were designed to clean up the corruption which we saw, particularly prior to the quiet revolution. There have been great advances made in Quebec, but the fact of the matter is that in our view some of these proposals have problems of their own and would be regressive if applied to the rest of the country. We would be very resistant to some of these ideas, certainly if there were not an opportunity for further discussion.

There is a great deal of material here and further Reform speakers will have a chance to address it.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC

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.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

Pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 24. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those in favour will please say yea.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen: