Geoff Regan

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 5th, 2001]

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

[Government Response to Petitions, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

[Canada Elections Act, December 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight to speak on the bill, which would provide that every ballot would include a category for voting for “none of the above” candidates. I would like to thank the hon. member for Davenport for his ongoing interest in electoral issues and for his many contributions in this area.

Today's discussion relates to the fundamental matter of how Canadians choose their representatives in government. The right to vote is of course a fundamental right in our system of parliamentary democracy. Indeed, few responsibilities of democratic citizenship are more important than the exercising of that right. Through the exercising of this responsibility, Canadians send members to parliament to sit in the House and choose a government.

The government has been very active in improving our electoral laws in recent years. These changes have in large part sought to facilitate Canadians in exercising their democratic responsibility to choose members of parliament.

In 1996 parliament passed Bill C-63, which created the National Register of Electors. Bill C-63 also changed the polling hours so that the polls would close at the same time in the western provinces as in Ontario and Quebec. In 1999 parliament debated and passed Bill C-2 ,which thoroughly overhauled and modernized the electoral law of our country. The bill updated the tax credits for individual political contributions and made it easier for people to run as candidates by making the candidate deposit fully refundable on the filing of financial statements. Earlier this year parliament passed Bill C-9, which made it much easier for parties to qualify to have their party names on the ballot.

Under the bill before us today every ballot printed by Elections Canada would include the line “none of the above”. It seems to me that this would be at odds with the very purpose of elections, that is, to send members of parliament to the House. My concern is that the bill could be seen by Canadians as saying that they should have the option of avoiding their democratic responsibilities.

Democracy is not easy. In fact, Sir Winston Churchill, as many or perhaps all members in the House would know, said, as we recall, that democracy is the worst system there is except for all the others. That is clear. In other words, it is not a perfect system. It is a difficult system. It requires citizens to take an interest in what is going on and make difficult choices sometimes, but that is what voting is all about and that is our responsibility. We do not get to choose the exact person and party we might ideally like to have as our candidate or as a government. We have to choose among the alternatives. We choose among people who are doing the best they can as individual human beings and that is what democracy is all about.

The bill could also lead to cynicism about democracy and about our parliamentary institutions. I would like to point out to the hon. member for Davenport that Canadians already have ways to avoid participation in choosing their government and representatives. Canadians can avoid participating in the electoral process by spoiling their ballots. In every election Elections Canada records the number of voters in each riding who choose to spoil their ballots, so there is in fact a record kept of those people. Canadians can also simply choose to stay at home on election day, as we all know. This is unlike the situation in many countries around the world, such as Australia, where all citizens are required by law to vote. The bill, then, would present a third route of non-participation.

The bill is also unnecessary because our system ensures that Canadians have many alternatives from which to choose in elections. As we know, there are five political parties currently represented in the House and in the last election there were 11 political parties with candidates on the ballot. In total, 1,808 candidates ran for office across this great country.

These candidates and parties spanned the ideological spectrum and took different views on all kinds of issues. Advocates of the right to vote for none of the above may suggest that it is a way to give people an outlet where they are starved for choice, but we Canadians are not starved for choice as we are given a wide range of visions of the future at election time.

In any event, it is now even easier for parties to be recognized so that they can get their names on the ballot during an election campaign. There was a time when a party had to have 50 candidates to have its name on the ballot. Now, thanks to the changes introduced earlier this year in Bill C-9, that number is 12. To get official recognition as a party and to have its name on the ballot, a party needs only 12 candidates across the country. As a result, we can expect that in future elections Canadians will have even more choice on their ballots. I also point out that the proposal would be inconsistent with our own traditions and I am not aware of any other country providing this option in national elections.

I note that last year the people of California considered a measure similar to the one presented in this bill and in a referendum 64% of them voted against including a category of none of the above on ballots in that state. I am not suggesting that what the people in California do should determine what we should do here, but it is interesting that California, which is often considered to be avant-garde in many ways, was not supportive of this measure.

In conclusion, I believe that our current system encourages Canadians to exercise the right to vote and provides a range of possibilities for doing so. The option of adding a new category to our election ballots seems to me unnecessary, potentially harmful to our parliamentary institutions, not in keeping with our electoral traditions and not shared by other major countries for national elections.

I applaud the hon. member for his commitment and efforts at pursuing electoral reform, although in this case I feel that there may be alternatives that would be more in keeping with our traditions and practices.

[Points of Order, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough raised a point of order with respect to the appropriations bill provision for foreign affairs vote 36a of $2 million for payment to compensate for transferred liabilities to the Export Development Corporation in respect of its employees who have contributed to the public service death benefit account. The member suggested that there is no statutory basis for this transfer.

I want to point out that the current name for the corporation is that which is specified in the appropriations bill.

I would like to note also that EDC withdrew from the Public Service Superannuation Act in April 2000. It thus incurred a one time liability at that time. This payment simply covers EDC's liability for that purpose. Authority is provided under the Public Service Superannuation Act for this. This would have been required with or without Bill C-31, the EDC Act and in fact, has nothing to do with that bill.

[Committees of the House, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the second motion for which I seek the unanimous consent of the House is as follows:

That as part of its consideration of the government's future role in agriculture, eleven (11) members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food (six (6) government members and five (5) opposition members from the various opposition parties) be authorized to travel in Canada from February 18 to February 22, 2002, from March 11 to March 15, 2002, and from March 18 to March 22, 2002, to meet with Canadian farmers and other stakeholders in the agrifood sector, and that the required staff accompany the Committee.

[Committees of the House, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, following discussions among the parties I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the Sub-Committee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be authorized to travel from February 9 to February 16, 2002, to Colombia in relation to its study of human rights, development and other matters in Colombia, and that the said Committee be composed of 1 Alliance member, 1 Bloc Quebecois member, 1 NDP member, 1 PC/DR Coalition member and 5 Liberals, and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member. I noted particularly his comments about the reduction in debt over the past few years and his view that this was a very small, modest paying down of the debt.

It strikes me that we should consider the fact that the government has paid down the debt by $37 billion. It has reduced the debt by that much. In 1993 who in the country would have believed it? If the Liberal Party in its campaign had said it would not only balance the books, reduce the deficit and eliminate it but it would also pay down the debt by $37 billion over the next seven or eight years, people would have laughed. They would have laughed uproariously, but in fact what has happened is exactly that.

The hon. member fails to recognize the achievement of the government in reducing the debt by that much, which is a remarkable achievement in view of the fact that to start with the government was faced with a situation of near bankruptcy, a incredibly terrible situation. It seems to me that the member is ignoring that reality.

What really interests me is the question of how the Alliance has lost its priorities. I realize that the view of Alliance members is that they should represent only their own ridings. The question is, how does a party broaden its support base if it does not reconcile the views of the rest of the country? I am not suggesting I am confident that the member is absolutely certain of what his riding's view is, but I will give him that for the moment. How does the member broaden that base if he does not reconcile the views of the rest of the country?

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member, as well as the member before him. As I listened, it was rather entertaining and amusing to see the limits that that party would go to try to find some glimmer of political hope in what has been for it a very dim period, particularly when it went to the length of saying that we were in a Liberal recession. I did not hear the Alliance members say that it was a republican recession in the U.S. or that some other party was causing a global slowdown.

In trying to gain some political advantage for themselves, the Alliance members are trying to suggest that this global slowdown is somehow connected to the government party. That is really stretching it. That clearly shows they are not listening to people, the way the government is. In fact, that is the way the budget is being prepared, by listening to Canadians, by consulting them and by hearing from them.

Over the past few weeks we have heard endless questions and statements from the Alliance in the House calling for tax cuts and spending, the kind of things that would put us into a deep deficit. However, I would ask the hon. member this. If he calls it a Liberal recession here, what does he call it in the U.S. and in the rest of the world?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 4th, 2001]

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

[Question No. 79, November 30th, 2001]

I am informed by Environment Canada, Health Canada and the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation as follows:

Environment Canada and Health Canada

Environment Canada and Health Canada are the federal departments that have contributed funding toward the Sydney tar ponds and former coke ovens cleanup. The answers below pertain to both departments.

(a) Environment Canada and Health Canada contributed jointly to a cabinet submission to secure $37.9 million in federal funds, part of a three year $62 million cost share agreement among the federal, provincial and municipal governments. Environment Canada is the custodian of these funds.

(b) The funding, announced in May 1999, was to be spread over the three years of the cost share agreement.

(c) Recipients of the funding were the Nova Scotia department of transportation and public works, the Cape Breton Regional Municipality CBRM, and the joint action group JAG, through the CBRM.

(d) The purpose of the funding was to support the administration and operation of JAG through the JAG secretariat to complete the required environmental and health evaluation and assessment work on issues associated with the Muggah Creek watershed and to undertake initial remediation projects, all through contracts with private sector companies.

Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation

In 1997 Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation provided $522,180.22 under the Canada--Nova Scotia infrastructure works program to the Cape Breton regional municipality for the construction of an interceptor sewer, phase I, in the Muggah Creek, the Sydney tar ponds.