Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2001

Lumber Industry

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is indeed a consensus across the country that we should not restrict our softwood exports to please whoever on the American side.

People across the country hope that we are headed toward free trade, and we want to make sure that, through constructive dialogue with the United States, we will have a smooth transition to free trade.

Foreign Affairs

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Violent conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian people continues to escalate at an alarming rate in the Middle East.

Will the minister tell the House what initiatives the federal government is undertaking to promote an end to the violence and a renewal of the peace process in the Middle East that is so desperately needed today?

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, since violence erupted last fall, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have continuously been in contact with Palestinian and Israeli regional leaders to urge them to put an end to violence and return to the negotiating table.

Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs had a meeting with Palestine's Minister for International Co-operation, Dr. Nabil Sha'ath.

Dr. Sha'ath said it was urgent that Palestinians and Israelis take measures to end the violence, and that the parties should return to the negotiating table and, together, prepare peace, not war.

Pensions

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over 140,000 British expatriate pensioners living in Canada are trying to get by on a pension that has been frozen since they left Britain. If these same people had moved to Israel, the United States or even Malta, their pensions would have been indexed, but because they live in Canada for some reason they pay the personal price.

The Prime Minister has promised to raise this issue with Mr. Blair during today's visit. Could the minister now tell the House following meetings with Mr. Blair that British expatriates living in Canada will now receive the indexed pensions that they deserve?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is one that has been raised with a number of us in our capacity as MPs by British subjects resident in Canada. I understand it is totally a matter for the British authorities.

The Prime Minister's discussions with Mr. Blair have not yet concluded. I hope to have a report for the House tomorrow. The hon. member has raised an important subject of interest to many of us on both sides of the House.

Amateur Sport

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport recently described sports as the best vehicle for national unity, which is contrary to his avowed desire not to mix politics and sports. He has also been quoted as saying that the school system will be the basis of his strategy.

Are we to understand from these words of the secretary of state that he has changed his mind and intends to implement his national sport policy by interfering in the field of education?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Secretary of State (Amateur Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, my response to my hon. colleague, who has been sent to do the dirty work for the future premier of Quebec, is that here in this House we have decided to work on behalf of the population as a whole.

Even the people in charge of Sports-Québec are working with me, and Sports-Québec as a whole is behind me. The hon. member ought to send the message to the Quebec minister responsible for sports to work with the Government of Canada, because we have the interests of Quebec at heart.

Business Of The House

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, looking at the upcoming calendar, I would like to ask the government House leader what kind of business he has planned for the rest of the day and the rest of the week. Will he get some meaningful legislation passed before the business of supply is finished? It looks pretty shaky to me.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope the opposition will co-operate to ensure that we pass all the meaningful legislation that we have. I will take the comments of the opposition House leader as representation to his own colleagues to do just that.

This afternoon we will debate second reading of Bill C-9, the administrative amendments to the Canada Elections Act brought by a decision of the courts.

On Friday it is my intention, following Bill C-9, to debate Bill S-2 respecting marine liability.

On Monday we would like to commence consideration of the very important and excellent piece of legislation Bill C-11, the immigration bill. This would be followed by Bill C-12, the Judges Act amendments and Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation which is equally important.

Thursday, March 1, shall be an allotted day.

I am presently discussing with counterparts in other parties a proposal to reaffirm the powers of the Speaker to select for debate amendments at report stage in a manner that is fair to members and in the manner that it was intended when that procedure was adopted. Subject to consultation, I hope to be able to ask the House to consider this proposition some time next week, possibly early next week.

Privilege

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I raise my question of privilege in response to a letter dated February 16, 2001, from the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot. This letter was distributed to members and to all media. It came to my attention yesterday, February 21. I believe this question meets the criteria as described in Standing Order 48, and Marleau and Montpetit, page 121.

The member's letter contains information discussed in camera among the members of the procedure and house affairs subcommittee on private members' business. This, in and of itself, has been found to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege, as noted in Marleau and Montpetit, page 838 which states:

Divulging any part of the proceedings of an in camera committee meeting has been ruled by the Speaker to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege.

The member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot's Bill C-234 was deemed non-votable by the committee, and he wrote in his letter that the bill “was ruled non-votable by the opposition members on the subcommittee for private members' business”. He went on to say “crude partisanship has thus deprived all MPs of a debate”. He also said “opposition MPs have been complaining about the lack of opportunity of backbench MPs and the relevance of parliament. Yet when given a chance to do something about it, they failed to take it”.

I argue that the tone and content of the letter is inappropriate and that he has divulged in camera details of a subcommittee to other members and to the media. In doing so he has put both myself and all my colleagues in an untenable position of being unable to defend ourselves against such charges because to do so would force us to divulge information from an in camera meeting, which we will not do.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is a committee that works much differently than the sometimes more partisan parliamentary committees. I commend all my colleagues for their excellent work on the subcommittee for private members' business. The member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot may not be aware that the decisions as to which bills and motions are deemed votable are reached through a consensus process with representatives of all parties, including his own.

On the matter of privilege, Marleau and Montpetit, page 52 states:

—Members can only claim privilege insofar as any denial of their rights, or threat made to them, would impede the functioning of the House.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that my right to defend myself, and for all members to defend themselves against such accusations, have been denied by the member and his actions. His actions have impeded my ability to fulfil my function as a member on this committee.

Marleau and Montpetit point out “The unjust damaging of a member's good name might also be seen as constituting an obstruction”. In ruling on a question of privilege, Speaker Fraser stated:

The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions. It is obvious that the unjust damaging of a reputation could constitute such an impediment.

I respectfully submit that the actions of the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot have done just that and brought unjust damage to the reputation of all members of the subcommittee and, in fact, to the entire House of Commons. Members who sat on the subcommittee have worked together and given many hours of their time to hear submissions from their colleagues from all parties. Which member in his or her right mind would want to give of themselves for the benefit of their colleagues knowing that they may be faced with indefensible rebukes and the prospect of a damaged reputation from a colleague they have sought to assist?

Should you, Mr. Speaker, find that this is a prima facie matter of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the subcommittee on private members' business, I too received a copy of the letter from the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.

I agree fully with the very pertinent remarks just made by my colleague, the deputy whip of the Canadian Alliance Party. I think that we should not, as parliamentarians, allow such comments from a member whose bill was not selected to be disseminated throughout the media, because this might put additional pressure on the members of the subcommittee on private members' business.

I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the House, because we have an important bill, the act to amend the Canada Elections Act, to study, but I would just like to point out, as the Canadian Alliance deputy whip did earlier, the consensual nature of the discussions that took place in this committee.

In my opinion singling out or referring to members of the opposition in two places in this letter is, first, an insult to the members of the opposition but it is also an insult to the government member who chairs that committee, and who placed a heavy emphasis on the consensual character of these deliberations, and on their non-partisan nature.

The strongest proof that the composition of this subcommittee is not like other House committees is that the government is in the minority; there is only one Liberal MP, the chair. The four opposition parties are represented on it. This is a clear illustration of this parliament's desire for, and custom and tradition of, lending it a consensual and non-partisan character.

Therefore, I support what my colleague, the deputy whip of the Canadian Alliance, has said.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I too spent the better part of two days on the subcommittee on private members' business and I want to concur in what the member for Dewdney—Alouette said. I do not want to repeat all his arguments. I want to confirm that this was a decision made by a consensus of all the committee members. There was no partisan nature to it whatsoever.

As a matter of fact, in our case there were eight New Democrats who presented motions to the committee and only one was chosen. There were no government motions. There was no Conservative motion. There were only two motions from the Alliance and four from the Bloc. This just shows there was a consensus. This time the Bloc had more motions chosen than anyone else. That was the result of a consensus by all members.

I can testify, after having spent two afternoons there, that no one on the committee was partisan in any sense, shape or form in terms of the selections that we made.

I think this is a genuine question of privilege. What the member across the way has done reflects on all of us who are on that committee. It really impugns all of our reputations as members of parliament who were trying to do a just and balanced job.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite taken by surprise by this question of privilege and I certainly take it very, very seriously.

But let me begin in my own defence by saying that I only wish that I did have some of the information that was discussed in camera with respect to the private members' bills that were deemed votable or not votable.

As you are very well aware, Mr. Speaker, one of the awkward things about this subcommittee is it is dominated by the opposition members. It deliberates in camera. A report is tabled in the House and there is no opportunity at any time for the members affected by whether their bill is chosen to be votable or non-votable. There is no opportunity at anytime to know the reason why the bill is deemed votable or not votable.

Now, if I may just go through my letter. I think I need to defend myself. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will agree that I have not said anything in my letter that besmirches the reputations of my colleagues opposite, nor in any sense, shall we say deviates from the information that I have fairly acquired.

First of all, the first paragraph said:

My Bill C-234 to amend the Supreme Court Act was ruled non-votable by the opposition members on the sub-committee for private members' business even though it met all the criteria for votability.

I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to examine my bill versus the known criteria for votability and you will find there is no argument. It met every one of those criteria for votability.

As far as my knowing that the opposition members voted against making my bill votable, I can assure the House that that arises from the fact that I had and still have great confidence that certainly the Liberal member on the subcommittee for private members' business would not have argued against his own colleague's bill. So by elimination, Mr. Speaker, it was very clear that the opposition members, now by their own admission, Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber, now the opposition members do admit that they did speak against my bill.

The second paragraph said:

The bill would have required the Supreme Court to consider the intent of parliament when considering Charter cases. It would also have prevented the government from broadly applying split-decisions like that of Marshall where the Micmac were given an aboriginal right to the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, you will agree that there is nothing contentious in that, which merits a point of privilege. It is a mere statement of the truth and a mere statement of what my bill would have done.

I think the third paragraph may have caused a little bit of awkwardness on the part of my colleagues opposite, where I say:

Crude partisanship has thus deprived all MPs of a debate on judicial activism and judge-made Charter law that most of us have been crying out for.

I submit, first and foremost that in this place of all places, to accuse another member of being partisan is one of the most normal things that could possibly occur here, because indeed more often than not, particularly during question period, we pride ourselves on being partisan.

Perhaps the adjective “crude” was a little offensive. But, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the fact that when items are selected for their votability, among the many items that come before the subcommittee, is that they have the option of selecting 10 items. In this instance they only selected seven. They could have selected three Liberal items.

I point out that it was not only me that had an item before the committee. The member for Davenport and the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, both Liberal members, also had items before the committee yet they were not chosen to be votable.

I can only conclude, as a member, that crude partisanship must have taken effect because all three of these Liberal items met all the criteria. If the people who were deliberating on this wanted to reject other opposition bills, that was perfectly fair. But I really do feel that there is no point of privilege here. As I stated:

Opposition MPs have been complaining about the lack of opportunity of backbench MPs and the irrelevance of Parliament. Yet when given a chance to do something about it, they failed to take it.

Mr. Speaker, I merely stated the truth.

[The Speaker]

We have had an extensive discussion on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette. The Chair would like to thank all hon. members who participated in this discussion for their interventions.

It seems to me that at first glance it might appear that there was some basis for objection when one reads the first paragraph of the letter of the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, from which he quoted extensively in the course of his remarks.

The Chair is of course very mindful of the privileges of the House and anxious to ensure that they are properly upheld.

However, I must say that a few years ago I was a member of this subcommittee and I took part in the discussions. The subcommittee operated exactly as has been described today.

I know that it proceeded by consensus then. We always strove to obtain that and avoid a vote. There was not a government majority on the subcommittee at that time. It was one where members worked together to choose the bills that were of interest to members of the House and were chosen for that purpose. It sounded to me, in the discussion today, as though the committee is carrying on exactly as it had before.

The letter sent by the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot may have been somewhat indelicate but, having said that, I do not think that it has offended or breached the privileges of any hon. member. Some have clearly found it offensive. I can understand why that might be so, but partisanship is a fact of life in this Chamber. As the hon. member has pointed out, we do have it from time to time. Sometimes members make the mistake of sending partisan letters here and there. This one appears to have gone everywhere. It is one of those things that happens from time to time.

However, I think we have had an airing of the grievance. I think it is a grievance. I do not believe it is a question of privilege. Having had the airing, I believe we will let the matter settle there.

Petitions

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present a petition that comes from a number of farmers and ranchers.

Mr. Speaker, you will know those little creatures technically called Richardson's ground squirrels. We call them gophers. Farmers and ranchers can no longer get poison that will kill them.

The petitioners ask that until Health Canada comes up with something that can really kill these varmints, to reintroduce the same formula of strychnine that they have had in the past.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Canada Elections Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved that Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the bill entitled an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

We have to make changes to reflect the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Figueroa concerning the identification of political party affiliation on the ballot.

I trust that all hon. members will acknowledge the importance of re-examining certain provisions of the Canada Elections Act and that we will support this process.

Allow me to explain the reasons we are counting on the support of all hon. members for what I hope will be the expeditious passage of the bill.

Late August of last year the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered its decision in what has become known as the Figueroa case. In his argument, Mr. Figueroa, representing the Communist Party of Canada, challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of the Canada Elections Act relating to the official registration of political parties.

First, he argued that the requirements that a party nominate 50 candidates, which is the rule with which we are familiar, in order to be an official party violated section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Figueroa claimed that because they were deprived of official recognition, certain parties were not entitled to the same tax benefits as were provided for other official parties and were accordingly placed at a disadvantage in what he claimed to be a violation of guarantees under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On this point, the Ontario Court of Appeals affirmed that the political parties play an important role in the electoral process. The court stressed that any political party aspiring to form a government or to play a significant role in the affairs of the state must at least offer a large enough number of candidates to allow for such a role. In other words, one person or two and so on is not a political party.

The court also noted that the principle of effective representation underlying section 3 of the charter is only given expression when a political party assumes a significant level of involvement.

In the court's view, the issue was therefore to determine a reasonable number of candidates to meet the criteria for the purpose of tax benefits, and a current limit of 50 appeared reasonable in every respect. We agree with that point and that provision will therefore remain unchanged. In other words, if one cannot round up 50 candidates, one does not get the tax benefits.

At the same time Mr. Figueroa challenged the minimal requirement of 50 candidates in order for the candidate's political affiliation to be included with his or her name on the ballot. This was ruled to be a separate and different point. Prior to that most of us had assumed that to be the same threshold.

His reasoning on this issue was that the identification of each candidate's political affiliation on the ballot made it easier for voters to choose. The Ontario Court of Appeal took careful note of Mr. Figueroa's statement in that regard.

For the moment, as I have said, the existing law does not provide for the identification of candidates, except when they belong to a duly registered political party. So, if the party is not duly registered, it is not recorded on the ballot. That means that they, here too, must run a minimum of 50 candidates to have the party name appear with the candidate's name on the ballot.

However, on this point, the Ontario court of appeal has recognized that, in certain instances, political affiliation can play a role in the choice of the electorate and that, therefore, it must be indicated clearly on the ballot.

In addition, the court held that, while the criteria set for official recognition of a political party are entirely justifiable for the purposes of granting financial assistance, this is not the case with the identification of the political affiliation on the ballot.

In addition, the court noted, just the political identification of a candidate on a ballot can cause the voter to choose one or another candidate. This would be particularly relevant in the case of two candidates from two different parties with the same name.

Thus, for all these reasons, the court recognized that candidates' identification and political affiliation on a ballot are justified and important enough for political parties to have greater access.

There again, we must have a minimum number of candidates to reasonably talk about political parties without misleading voters. It is critical that voters can make an educated choice. That, of course, automatically rules out individual candidates. In other words, a person is not a political party.

Our government is proposing to this House amendments that reflect the ruling issued by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

In 1991, the Lortie commission proposed a minimum of 15 candidates for the name of a party to appear on the ballots.

There is of course no magical number. In this House, a party must have a minimum of 12 elected members to be officially recognized. Therefore, we are proposing to set the number at 12. Twelve candidates could, in theory, when they are registered on ballots, form a political party in the House of Commons.

Of course, in order to achieve that recognition, a party would have to get 100% of its candidates elected, which is unlikely. But still—

[An hon. member]

It is mathematically possible.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

It is mathematically possible, as the hon. member opposite said. In fact, it almost happened to my political party in Ontario. So, it is mathematically possible, and this is why we are proposing it.

The number 12 is found in various functions of our parliamentary system. It coincides, as I said a moment ago, with the number required for recognition in the House. If a party does not have 12 members in the House, it is not a political party or no longer a political party and so on. In this way small political parties could be identified on the ballot.

We propose that henceforth the name of a political institution comprising at least 12 candidates in an election be included along with the name of those candidates on the ballot. This does not give an automatic tax incentive for that group of people. In that regard the threshold would remain at 50.

We must never lose sight of the fact that the Canada Elections Act forms the very foundation of our democratic process. Its primary purpose is one of access, in the absolute respect of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It must be open to Canadians to exercise their democratic right to promote new ideas in parliament.

Many of the modifications we made in the last parliament made it possible for a large number of Canadians to vote where they would have been prevented from doing so before. I am very proud of the fact that the House in the last parliament sought to widen the franchise as it did, allowing people who are out of the country to vote and so on.

We must welcome with enthusiasm and generosity the emergence of any political party capable of enriching and complementing our society. Indeed, two of the five parties represented in the House today did not even exist a decade ago, so obviously our present system has permitted the emergence of new political parties.

Since the new act entered into force in September 2000 its implementation has revealed a few anomalies that need to be rectified. I propose to do so at the same time with the bill.

The bill introduces amendments to the Canada Elections Act that are of a more technical nature. Sometimes the amendments are simply terminological changes to make English and French versions consistent. At other times there was a reference to a committee of the House when it should have referred to a committee of both houses, and I am correcting that as well.

In conclusion, I indicate to all hon. members that it is my intention in the future, following the presentation of the chief electoral officer to the parliamentary committee, to listen to the committee's advice and to propose substantive changes to the Canada Elections Act where there is a consensus to do so. I intend to do so quite openly, as I did in the last parliament, to incorporate ideas from all sides of the House.

That will happen at a time in the future, once we have listened to the report of the chief electoral officer and the important contribution made by the parliamentary committee. I want the House to know that I am quite open and quite willing to do that when the time comes.

That is not before us today. What is before us today is merely to respect the decision of the court to correct the law in a way that makes it possible to recognize the court's decision, to correct the legislation accordingly and to do so within the timeframe the court has given to us. That is why I hope we will pass the bill very quickly in the House.

At the same time I want to assure hon. members that this is not the only change I propose to make to the Canada Elections Act in this parliament. I am quite open to listening to the constructive advice of all hon. members, after the chief electoral officer appears before the committee, and to undertake further changes as will have been deemed necessary.

Meanwhile I ask all parliamentarians in the House to support these minor changes, changes which are important, because we have been instructed by the court to take care of them. I believe the changes we are undertaking today will improve the Canada Elections Act. The changes we will undertake after the chief electoral officer appears before the parliamentary committee, as well as the recommendations of the committee which is chaired by my own parliamentary secretary, will do so even more.

I thank hon. members for their co-operation in the matter. I hope the bill will go to committee in a timely manner so that we can respect fully the court's decision.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been all party consultations and I request that you seek unanimous consent to allow our first speaker on Bill C-9, the member for Lanark—Carleton, to split his time with the member for Edmonton North.

[The Speaker]

Is there agreement to proceed as suggested by the hon. member for Athabasca?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend just noted, I will be dividing my time with the beautiful hon. member for Edmonton North.

Tony Blair's speech today reminded us of the link between Britain and Canada. To listen to our Prime Minister one might have been forgiven for thinking that the chief link between Canada and Britain was that it was our number two investor, as if this place were not named after the House of Commons at Westminster, as if Canada and Britain did not share a head of state in Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and as if we had not based our own constitution upon that of the United Kingdom.

The preamble to the British North America Act, our constitution, reads as follows:

Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:

This then went on and dealt with substantive items.

The idea at the time was that we would benefit as Canadians from the liberties and ancient freedoms that Englishmen had enjoyed and that the unwritten British constitution guaranteed.

In 1868 the classic statement of those liberties was given in Walter Bagehot's famous book The English Constitution , a classic which is still read today by those who seek to understand both the British constitution and the unwritten aspects of our own constitution, many of which are still in place today.

Walter Bagehot stated something very interesting, which is of relevance to the debate today, on the legislation before the House. He stated that the United Kingdom, although nominally a kingdom, was not a tyranny like the monarchies of the European continent but rather that it was, in hidden or veiled form, a republic. He meant that it was a country with a mixed system of government; that is to say, with a monarch, with an aristocratic element in the form of the House of Lords and with a democratic element in the form of the House of Commons.

That was the ideal represented by Great Britain at the time. It was also the ideal that we had hoped to gel in Canada when we created our constitution. We wanted to set as our principle the goal of being, as much as we could be, a mirror image and a transcript of that country which was the freest country in all the world and a model for all the world. That was the ideal our laws were meant to represent up to the present day.

Sadly, Bill C-9 does not reflect any of that. It reflects instead our degraded constitutional status. I am speaking of the unwritten constitution in which the Queen and the Governor General are no longer permitted to bear the true pomp and dignity of their office. Much of that role has been taken over by an increasingly self-important and pompous prime ministerial office. The Senate is no longer the natural aristocracy it was meant to be but has become a body full of appointed political hacks.

Unfortunately, and the greatest tragedy of all, the Commons, the democratic wing of government, is no longer a parliamentary body but an electoral college in perpetual session whose role is to perpetually reaffirm the status of the Prime Minister as the elected monarch of the country. Canada is an elected monarchy today, and this is a great degradation from the original model that was set up and understood by the Fathers of Confederation.

The lone remaining aspect of our original republican constitution, republican in the original form, is the electoral process that takes place and allows this electoral college to be elected every four or five years or, in the case of this government, every three and a half years. That part of our constitution does still function somewhat.

However, I am afraid to say that a series of initiatives, culminating in this pernicious bill, seek to deprive us of the full measure of freedom our electoral system is meant to guarantee. The bill does this, regrettably, by depriving small parties of the full right to participate in elections on the same terms as major parties, such as the Liberal Party, my own party and all the parties represented in the House. It also deprives independent candidates of that equivalent right.

It is simply something that has no place in a democratic society, or in a society that seeks to be democratic and in which the people of the country seek to have at least a democratic element in their constitution.

It does this in the following manner. It seeks to do so by being part of a concerted strategy of squeezing the freedom out of free elections. We see the government taking action over and over again to put restrictions on third party advertising as its laws are struck down by the courts.

Laws are passed restricting third party advertising. They are taken to court, struck down, re-enacted with minor variations and will be struck down again. In the meantime third party advertising cannot take place. That is something of which we should all be ashamed.

In another matter related to the bill we saw the federal government's failure in June 1995 to permit the mandated review by law of the referendum act. We now see restrictions being placed on the rights of minor parties to participate on an equivalent or equal footing with the larger parties in federal elections.

I want to give a bit of historical background to explain exactly how the present situation has evolved. In May 1993 the previous Progressive Conservative government with all party support, except for the support of the hon. member for Beaver River who is now the member for Edmonton North, passed a law stating that any party which failed to field 50 candidates in a federal election would have its assets confiscated. There would be a process by which the assets would be sold off. Its debts would be cleared and any remaining money would be turned over to the Receiver General for Canada or, more correctly, to the chief electoral officer.

As a result of the law being passed and the fact that the Communist Party of Canada failed to field 50 candidates in the 1993 election, the Communist Party of Canada was ordered to close up shop in the manner prescribed by the law. The Communist Party did so, but the leader of the Communist Party, Mr. Miguel Figueroa, took the electoral law to court and argued that the 50 candidate rule was unconstitutional.

It took a long time for him to work his way through the court system, but in a ruling on March 10, 1999, Madam Justice Anne Marie Malloy of the Ontario Court, General Division, ruled that the Canada Elections Act violated the charter of rights in a number of important ways and that therefore substantial chunks of the law would be struck down.

I will quote from Madam Justice Malloy's decision in order to make the point. She wrote the following:

Only parties which nominate at least 50 candidates in a federal election are entitled to be registered under the Act. This provision violates s. 3 of the Charter because it provides an advantage to candidates of larger parties while denying it to others—Further, the fifty-candidate threshold is not rationally connected to stated objectives of ensuring that only “serious” parties or parties with a broad base of support be entitled to register—There is a rational basis for restricting registration to parties which have at least two candidates as the act of running a slate of candidates under one party banner is the hallmark of a political party.

That is to distinguish parties from independents.

The appropriate remedy is to read into the relevant provisions the requirement of at least two candidates for registered status, rather than the current 50-candidate threshold.

She continued to say that the defendant, the government, conceded that the provision that only candidates of registered parties are entitled to have their party affiliation appear on the ballot infringes on freedom of expression contrary to subsection 2(b) of the charter. The government itself admitted that. She continued:

It also infringes the s. 3 rights of those candidates because the use of a party identifier is a benefit which should not be extended to any candidates if it is not extended on an equal basis to all.

She went on to say the following. The provision for automatic deletion from the register of a party which fails to nominate at least 50 candidates in any federal election, the effect of which is that the party is required to sell all of its assets, pay its debts and remit any positive balance to the government, has a devastating financial effect on political parties, as well as on voters, and limits the ability of a party to continue its support of its candidate. It violates the section 3 rights of both. Since the supporters of the party are less able in association with each other through their chosen party to express their political views to the public, the provision also infringes their right to freedom of expression and freedom of association contrary to sections 2(b) and 2(d) of the charter.

During this part of the speech, the minister has been offering some commentary about how parts of this decision were overruled by the Ontario court of appeal. He is quite correct as to the facts; there was some overruling of some parts of the bill. What he does not mention is that the court of appeal's ruling is itself at this point being appealed by Mr. Figueroa and we do not yet know whether those parts will be reinstated.

It would be my interpretation that in fact Madam Justice Malloy's interpretation was correct and the government lawyers were in fact quite unreasonable in their understanding of the relevant parts of the constitution.

In dealing with responding to the court's ruling, the court of appeal instructed the government to produce legislation to deal with the unconstitutionality of parts of the law within six months. It in fact complied, shy one day of six months, by producing this law, Bill C-9, which gives the narrowest conceivable interpretation to the court's decision and to the rights protected by the court.

As well, the government appears to have put in a number of very vindictive provisions designed to ensure that small parties—not its party, not my party, not the Bloc Quebecois or the NDP or the Progressive Conservatives, but small parties and independents—will not have access to certain rights that are or should be extended to all parties on an equal footing.

I am thinking here of allowing the issuance of tax receipts between elections. I am thinking here of the right to a final voters list as opposed to merely a preliminary voters list, and that is a significant factor for a party contesting an election, for example, in my own riding, which is growing rapidly and where the preliminary voters list has unfortunately a very limited correspondence to reality by the time of an election.

I should also mention that free time political advertising is restricted for these small parties.

The government has reinstated, as best it can, the unconstitutional 50 candidate rule, which will of course be struck down on appeal eventually after a number of years go by, at great expense to these small parties and these private citizens. It will accomplish that temporarily. It will deprive these parties of their rights to freely contest elections. It will deprive people who want to get together in smaller groupings, for whatever reason, or who do not have the resources to create large groupings, such as the communists and some of the other small parties, some of whom contested the election in my riding against me.

I may not agree with them ideologically, but I think they have the right to run against me. If they can convince the voters that they are better representatives of voter interests than I am, that is fair. I should not have an extra advantage. I certainly do not think that the 172 or 173 members on that side of the House, whatever the number is, should have any extra advantage over these small parties either.

If I had been told that one day I would be making common cause with the communists against Her Majesty's government, I do not think I would have believed it, but here we are. Today I am making common cause with members of all small parties in defence of an equal, equitable playing field, of fairness for all independents and for all people who wish to contest elections, and in defence of our constitutional rights.

I have only a paraphrase here, but Voltaire, speaking to someone with whom he disagreed profoundly, said “I disagree with everything you say but I would defend to the death your right to say it”.

However, the government and this minister unfortunately seem to be saying something that is just about the opposite. It is saying it might actually agree with what one is saying, maybe even with most of it, but it will happily violate the constitution in any way it can think of in order to restrict one's right to say it. That is a shame. It should be stopped.

I will be opposing the bill. I encourage all members of all parties, including those who enjoy the benefits of this law, to fight against it and to ensure that it does not go through.