Ray Speaker

[Canada Elections Act, November 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, as always, the hon. member's mathematics is as inaccurate and unaccountable as the budget of the Liberal government.

The hon. member did not tell my constituents back home that I have given them over $30,000 in donations out of my salary to a variety of things. Did he do that? Did this hon. member refuse to take a federal pension? Did this hon. member tell Canadians and his constituents he will not take a federal pension which will most likely put a million dollars in his pocket? No, he did not. Did he tell Canadians that 50 Reform members of Parliament have said they will not take a federal pension which will most likely save Canadians $50 million? Well, he should.

[Canada Elections Act, November 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, in the period 1984 to 1993 the Tories led this country. They had majority governments and could take legislation or fiscal policy in any direction they wanted. They were high in the polls. The new leader, Kim Campbell, was infallible. They had answers to a thousand questions. However, when the worm turned and the Canadian people saw through the facade, the Tory government ended up with two people in the back row and not even a recognized party.

Therefore the hon. member had better remember the lessons of this House. Those who are irresponsible, those who continue to put this country into debt and those who try to fool the Canadian people will end up as a minority party, unrecognized in this House as well.

[Canada Elections Act, November 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give a quick response to that utterance.

The Canadian people are mature and responsible. Provinces are responsible entities in this country. They have shown that they can manage their public affairs and their fiscal affairs much better than the federal government, which is so centralized. Who has the big debt in the country which amounts to $600 billion? Who has the deficit in the country? The federal Liberal government. Who has looked after the deficit and debt in this country? Eight of the provinces. When will the federal government, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the member who has just spoken stand to say they have a balanced budget, which eight of the provinces have?

When they have fiscal and social policies which are reflective of the Canadian people then the member can say what he has said. Under the circumstances today, the Liberal federal government has no credibility to be the guardian of the needs of Canadians.

[Canada Elections Act, November 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Fraser Valley East.

A number of the issues on Bill C-63 have been addressed by my colleague from Calgary West in terms of the specifics and where the Reform Party stands. I want to take on one comment that my colleague made in his remarks. He said that this bill which is supposedly to deal with some of the alienation in the west is not the solution to that alienation and the concerns that we have in western Canada. For example, changing the polling hours so that we do not

know the results of the vote in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes does not satisfy western Canada in terms of alienation.

Many of the Reform members who stand in this House are here because of the longstanding problems we have had with those in central Canada who do not have ears to listen to our problems. We are here to try to set those issues clearly before this assembly. For years the Tories and the Liberals have been on this side and then on that side of the House, but their ears have remained completely deaf to the issues of western Canada. The many times they have patronized us out in the west they have done it with little things which they throw out on the table.

Bill C-63 is just another one of those things. The government has changed the voting hours. There are 12 hours in which to vote and the government has tried to adjust it so that we cannot find out through today's technology how people voted in other places. And we are supposed to be satisfied with that and say how wonderful.

Other patronizing things have happened in this House as well which are just as unacceptable. There is crime in this country. There are youth who are committing adult crimes and this is totally unacceptable. I hear people across the way, including the member for York North, talk about the fresh start program of Reformers not having credibility. We have spent three and a half years in this assembly and the Liberal government has not dealt with the issue of crime.

What has the government done? There has been nothing to deal with the issue of crime but to register the guns of the innocent people of Canada. That is what the government has done. A big bill and a lot of fanfare and it is a bill the government cannot even implement for Canadians. That is what the government has given to Canadians.

It is not only the issue of crime but also other problems this country has. Reformers presented to this House an option for unity that if Quebec is to stay, should we not decentralize some powers. The government says things are good enough the way they are, that if it gives good government they should be satisfied. It is not resolving the matter. It continues. Western Canadian alienation continues. These little titbits get rolled out on the floor and the government thinks we should be satisfied, not only in Quebec but out in the west and that we should keep quiet.

It is just not good enough. We see it symbolized in the intent of this elections act which is before us today. The government has to do better.

The hon. member for North York spoke a few moments ago on this bill. He talked about budgeting and numbers and so on. There was a group of individuals representing the Liberal Party which sat for eight years on this side of the House. That group had eight years to do some work, eight years to prepare for government.

We came back for the session in 1994-95 and there was no legislation. We got a zero budget which had no indication or direction, no deficit reduction when Canadians were screaming for deficit reduction. We had to wait a whole fiscal year before the government woke up to what was needed in Canada.

Today the Reform Party has presented to Canadians a credible option so that when it is government it can walk into government and deal with it. If the Liberals had that kind of thought in mind we would have had a better government. We would not have a deficit of $27 billion today; we would have been closer to the $17 billion the Minister of Finance has targeted for another year.

This government always puts out things for symbolic reasons to try to fool the people of Canada, rather than doing something which has substance. That is the case with the bill which is before us at this time.

What should have happened in this term of office? It is time for the government to recognize that the regions of the country, western Canada and even Quebec, should have better representation. It is time for it to recognize that senators should be elected rather than put in the other House by patronage appointments. There have been at least two senators appointed during the 35th Parliament. They have been sent up to the other House and are in that Liberal haven of milk and honey until the age of 75. What a giveaway of public money. There is no accountability.

That would have been something of substance which would have helped western Canada, rather than the amendment that gave us different polling hours. There should be an elected Senate, an effective Senate and one which has equal representation. That would bring something better to the Canadian scenario than what we have before us at the moment.

[Canada Elections Act, November 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

The hon. member made a comment with regard to who should be able to make a contribution and who should not. He indicated that those who vote could make a contribution and those who do not vote should not be able under the legislation to make a contribution to a political party or a candidate in a respective election.

I would like the hon. member to clarify that point. I do not think he was saying to us, although it sounded that way, that a person would have to vote in order to qualify to make a contribution. I do not think that was the intent of the hon. member. If it was, I would feel rather disappointed because it would take away a certain freedom from individuals. If one wishes to vote, okay. If not, no.

If there were a distinction between corporate entities and individuals, that would be something different.

[Canada Elections Act, November 25th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak again on amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

In this group of amendments there are two basic principles that we are talking about; first, the principle of utilizing voters lists at the provincial level and permanent lists which are available to us so that we can better identify the constituents who would be on the federal list. The idea here is certainly the cost savings that would come about because of that.

The second principle we are looking at is the matter of whether we should provide voters lists to constituencies on an annual basis. We ask why we should do that.

The Reform Party has moved an amendment saying that there does not seem to be a good purpose and therefore we should eliminate this provision in the act as suggested by the government for annual distribution of updated voters lists to the registered political parties.

In terms of the B.C. and Quebec voters lists that could be available and may be available so that they can be used as the federal list, we should think first of all of the savings that could occur. If we look at the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta and Prince Edward Island, just those four lists, some 45 per cent of Canadian voters would be on a voters list if we used the current lists that are available at the provincial level.

The committee that studied this, and this comes as well from the electoral officer, said that if we had a permanent voters list in Canada we would save something like $14 million. So we are looking at the subsequent election, the one after the one in the spring of 1997, to save $14 million.

If we could use the lists from the provinces of British Columbia, Quebec, Alberta and Prince Edward Island, about 45 per cent of the population of Canada, we could save 45 per cent of $14 million in the upcoming election, in the 1997 election.

We have said a number of times in this House that is most likely when the government is going to call the election. It should tell us about that rather than keep hiding it. It should tell us that in the spring of 1997 there will be an election and then we would all be able to prepare accordingly. There could be a saving over $10 million if those four lists were used.

After a presentation by my colleague from Calgary, the government has agreed to use the lists from Alberta and Prince Edward Island. Now we are saying let us add two more, from British Columbia and Quebec, and do everything we can to make sure those are added to the permanent voters list of Canada. Look at the savings. I think that in itself would merit the support of the House of Commons for the amendment as suggested.

I think that is the strongest argument. The information is available. Why not use it accordingly?

If we look at the other amendment before us in terms of the voters list being distributed annually, I in my greatest imagination cannot understand why the government would want to facilitate the distribution of a voters list annually to all the constituencies in Canada and as well to every registered political party across this nation. What good use is there for that list in the years between one election and the next? Its primary purpose is to list people who are eligible to vote in an election.

We all know that during an election period candidates use the list for campaign purposes. That is legitimate. It is used in a variety of creative ways to communicate with voters encouraging them to support one party and not to support the other parties in the race. That is what it is all about.

Candidates have to communicate with the voters in some format. Some candidates have the facility and the time to phone thousands through the voters' lists. During that period the candidate is able to make the calls that are necessary and communicate their attitudes and their ideas. That is for a good and reasonable purpose.

What about in between an election date and the dropping of the subsequent writ? What could happen during that period of time? It is true we could have these election lists available to all political parties. The Reform, Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive Conservatives, if they have adequate people to do this, could do mail outs from the lists.

What is the purpose and why would this list be provided at thousands and thousands of dollars in cost? I know from practical experience over the years most of the lists would sit on the shelf and never be used at all. Out of the some 301 seats that will exist in Parliament after the next election, I am sure if one constituency out of the 301 uses the lists in between elections in any practical way or any way that is of value to the constituents that would be a miracle in itself. I do not see that at all.

If a constituency could come up with a good reason to use the list between the election date and the dropping of the next writ then I suggest that rather than produce these lists in a mass way that we should look at an option. The option is that a member, having some desire to use the list annually to communicate with his or her constituents, put money up front and pay the basic cost for the production of that list.

If it costs the Elections Canada office $1,000, $2,000, $5,000 or whatever the cost to produce the list, it should be done at cost. Elections Canada should not make a profit. Then that member should send a cheque to Elections Canada and say why and for what purpose that member would like a list of electors. The member could enclose a cheque for $1,000 or $5,000, whatever is established by Elections Canada. Elections Canada could transfer either the list or software to the member of Parliament at that point. I believe that would be adequate and look after some special need that I cannot think of at the present time. That would certainly serve the purpose.

Failing to amend the legislation in that light, if the government just leaves it as it is at the present where it says every year we turn the crank and an updated list is sent to every constituency in Canada, to me that is not good enough. I would have to vote against that kind of provision in the act. We should deal with the issue now. We should amend it so that no lists are provided between the date of the election and the dropping of the next writ, or we should make a provision in the act whereby a constituency, if necessary, can cite a good reason and purchase the list at cost from Elections Canada. That would satisfy the need of those kinds of persons.

[Canada Elections Act, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks with respect to the amendment that we proposed to Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. The amendment relates to byelections and the period of time in which those byelections can take place.

Historically, as all members know, elections campaigns have been carried out over a 47 day period. A sequence of events took place during those 47 days which, generally, was acceptable to Canadians. That 47 day period allowed both government members and opposition members to adjust.

This piece of legislation shortens the time period for a byelection from 47 days down to 36 days. In some cases that may be okay. For example when because of ill health someone passes away a period of time exists afterward and there is a bit of notice not only to the government but also the opposition parties in terms of filling that vacancy. There is some notice.

The major concern is that there are other situations. In this 35th Parliament there have been a number of situations where someone resigned on one day immediately after which the Prime Minister announced the byelection in the respective constituency and all parties were supposed to be ready. In that kind of a situation the government party is at an advantage.

Let us take the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister. We knew that the Deputy Prime Minister should resign and the opposition, the Reform Party questioned the government day after day, checking on the integrity and the actions of the government. We asked that if the Deputy Prime Minister really said that if the GST was not eliminated, killed, scrapped or done away with, if that did not happen, that she would resign. It took some days to prove it. We had to work on that. Knowing that this government had such a massive majority we were not sure that the Deputy Prime Minister would stick with that statement, show integrity and resign. The day came when all of a sudden the Deputy Prime Minister resigned. It happened. We were not sure when that was going to happen but the government was.

In the backrooms people like Hosek, Goldenberg and all those other backroom strategists who pull the strings of this government and really run the government, who tell the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the House leader and the whip what to do, had a lead time of two or three weeks to plan the events of the byelection. They were able to notify the people in Hamilton that there was going to be a byelection and to get themselves ready, raise their funds, get their campaign people together, that the Deputy Prime Minister was going to make an announcement. Quietly they could do that and I am sure they did.

The plug was pulled. There was a byelection. There were 47 days. We here in the Reform Party scrambled around, got a good candidate in place, raised funds, got our constituency organization working, brought people in from a variety of places to campaign, but we were somewhat at a disadvantage.

The government now wants to say that all of that can be done in 36 days. Who is winning out of that kind of a major amendment in the legislation? It is all to the advantage of the government.

I commented earlier in some of my statements in committee that a 36 day campaign for a regular election is not a bad idea. What is the difference? The difference is that going into a general election, opposition members, whether they are with one of the recognized parties or one of those parties that are disappearing into oblivion like the Progressive Conservative Party, if they have any smarts and are sitting in this House and making some general observations, which can be done even here today, they know that by the spring 1997 there will be a general federal election, or if it is not in the spring it will be in October 1997.

Those are easy observations. Anybody can do that. As political parties, just like the government, we should set some target dates in 1996 or 1997. I would think that all parties should have all or at least 90 per cent of their nominations completed by the end of March 1997 so they are ready. Then the candidates can work, raise funds, get their teams together and be prepared for a general election. There is notification and a 36 day campaign could work under those circumstances.

The better situation would be if there were fixed dates for elections so that every four years we would know exactly when we would vote. That would be a much better situation rather than allowing the government to play politics in the elections.

The case I made relative to the amendment is that we should have a longer notice period. In our amendment we have suggested a 30 day freeze period after a member vacates a seat for a variety of reasons. There are good reasons for that if we look at the examples here in the House.

David Berger was appointed as the ambassador to Israel at a salary range of between $88,000 and $103,000. That opened a seat and subsequently there was a byelection. It could have been called immediately the day he was appointed as the ambassador to Israel.

Jean Robert Gauthier was appointed as a senator. The day he was appointed and resigned his seat, a byelection could have been announced and we would have had only 36 days. That is not

enough time for people to understand what has happened nor for the opposition parties to prepare.

Andre Ouellet was appointed chairman of Canada Post. His salary has nicely increased from what it was in the House of Commons. It is now somewhere between $128,000 and $160,000.

The point I want to make is that the person could have been appointed one day and the byelection could have been announced at that time, with only 36 days rather than 47 days to prepare. Some of the information in terms of salary is relevant in that we can see how there is such a desire for people to leave the salary or the position of member of Parliament or minister to go to other Liberal havens that are created for respective members of Parliament. I am sure that many have their eyes on such plumbs.

There have been other instances where a byelection was created. Roy MacLaren went to the position of high commissioner in the United Kingdom. William Rompkey and Shirley Maheu became senators. In every one of those situations, along with the example I gave earlier with regard to the Deputy Prime Minister, the person could have resigned his or her seat in this assembly and immediately an announcement of a byelection could have been made.

Under the legislation which has been brought before us by the Liberal government, the period of time for a byelection will be 36 days down from 47 days. That could have a major adverse effect on the democratic process in the preparation for the respective byelection. It would be unfair to the people who have to select the next candidate to sit as a member of Parliament.

The government should reconsider its position with regard to no freeze period of 30 days. If we could possibly reach a compromise, going back to the 47 days which is currently in the legislation, that would even be some recognition by the government that the period of time for a byelection must be longer than the minimum 36 day period which exists in the legislation being presented to us at this time.

I hope the government will reconsider its position and look at something different. Thirty-six days is just not fair in terms of good preparation for a byelection. A freeze of 30 days would be best but if we could agree to some kind of compromise at 47 days in an amendment to the legislation, I think it would meet some of the concerns we have on this side of the House.

[The Late Hon. Joseph Ghiz, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party I would like to join with other members of this House of Commons in paying tribute to a friend and certainly a leading Canadian, the Hon. Joe Ghiz.

Other speakers, certainly the Minister of Health, have already mentioned some of Mr. Ghiz's political aspects and aspects of his legal career. What I would like to do is just make a few personal comments in terms of my association with Mr. Ghiz on more than one occasion.

I had the opportunity work with Mr. Ghiz specifically during the Meech Lake negotiations in 1990. I found that in the formal and informal associations that we had and the conversations at that time I came to understand his political objectives, his concern for

Canada and certainly his own personal story which was often brought into a variety of situations and discussions at a time when we were negotiating the future of Canada.

I remember that one day after a lot of meetings and discussion, some of us were together to talk informally and sat together to unwind. In that conversation I remember Mr. Ghiz in an informal, interesting and entertaining way telling of his father's corner grocery store and how the son of a Lebanese immigrant could grow up, receive a law degree and become premier in this country of ours that he so lovingly and compassionately called Canada.

For Mr. Ghiz, Joe, Canada was a land of freedom and opportunity where everybody had a chance to achieve their own personal dreams just like he was able to during his short period of time on this earth.

I know many people, and in our personal conversations I found him to be a warm, considerate, down to earth person who genuinely cared about other people's families, their communities and certainly their personal concerns. In his own humble way he wanted to build a nation and find a place in that nation for Prince Edward Island.

Today we offer the sympathies and prayers of all of us in Canada to his wife and children at his home. He will be long remembered, and his contribution will be remembered specifically by those in Prince Edward Island, but all other Canadians who associated with him will never forget Mr. Joe Ghiz.

[Point Of Order, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to review the blues today relative to question period. In terms of the first question that was asked by my hon. colleague from Beaver River to the Prime Minister, in the Prime Minister's remarks I thought I heard the Prime Minister say to my hon. colleague that she did not tell the truth. I would like the Speaker to review the blues. I do not have access to them right now, but I would appreciate if you would do that. I am raising it at the first possible moment.

[Human Reproductive And Genetic Technologies Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I too will be voting against this motion.