Bill C-2 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations

Employment Insurance

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can choose the quote she likes. He also said he would like the clause withdrawn.

Also, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, which is very critical of Bill C-2, has unanimously agreed to report other amendments to the employment insurance system to the House of Commons by June 1 in order to permit real reform of the system.

Is the minister prepared to act on the committee's recommendations?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 amending the Employment Insurance Act is under fire.

The day before yesterday, the auditor general said that the government should withdraw clause 9 of the bill, which would allow the government to set the premium rate, thus making it legal for the government to misappropriate billions of dollars of surplus from the employment insurance fund.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development act on this request by the auditor general, an impartial player who condemns the subterfuge that would legalize the misappropriation of the $30 billion dollar surplus in the fund? Will she withdraw this disgusting clause?

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make the weekly business statement and to indicate to the House that I intend to do my utmost to have order paper questions answered as rapidly as possible.

This afternoon we will resume debate on Bill C-12 respecting compensation for judges. We will then continue with Bill C-18, the equalization bill, which we started this morning. That will be followed, if there is time, with Bill C-17 respecting the innovation foundation.

On Friday we will consider report stage of Bill C-4 respecting the sustainable development foundation, and any time left will be used on second reading of Bill C-7, the youth justice bill.

In an effort to complete consideration of the youth justice bill, we will continue discussing that bill on Monday next.

Next Tuesday we will commence report stage of Bill C-8 respecting the financial institutions legislation. Should that be completed, we would then continue with Bill C-22, the income tax amendment. As previously announced and as adopted by the House, in the evening there will be a special take note debate on the summit of the Americas.

Next Wednesday, March 28, we will debate Bill C-2, the employment insurance amendments, at report stage and hopefully have third reading on next Thursday, March 29.

That is the agenda of the House for next week.

Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to make a comment and then ask a question.

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has a lot of experience in the House of Commons, because he has been here for many years.

Let me give an example. This evening, I attended a meeting of the parliamentary committee on employment insurance dealing with Bill C-2. Parliamentarians, those whom we call backbenchers, even on the government side, would have had an opportunity to express themselves democratically, to propose changes and amendments to the employment insurance program.

It is as if these people had been told by the minister “No, there must not be any amendment from the opposition. That is unacceptable”. We have a supposedly democratic process. Yet, in committee, it is so obvious that all opposition members vote one way, while all government members vote the other way. It is as if there was no justice.

This is where I find there is no democracy. There is no democracy at all in committee or in the House. I see Liberal backbenchers complain and moan because they never have an opportunity to express their views. But when they do, sometimes they do not seize it. Has this been going on only since 1993 or for a longer time?

Judges Act

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence.

The bill amends the Judges Act to implement the government's response to the recommendations made by the 1999 judicial compensation and benefits commission. Among those recommendations is a retroactive salary increase of 11.2% for 1,013 federally appointed judges. The bill is purely administrative in nature, but that is the problem.

This is the fourth time the Liberal government has sought to amend the act. During the 35th parliament the government introduced Bill C-2 and Bill C-42 and during the 36th parliament, Bill C-37, all of which were minor pieces of legislation or of little significance to Canadians.

While we all recognize the need for housekeeping bills, there have been no significant initiatives by the current Liberal government to address the serious concerns of many Canadians with our judiciary. It appears more and more that the issues parliament may address when it comes to the judiciary are merely administrative in nature.

Under the guise of the charter the courts have appropriated for themselves the right to deal with substantive policy matters. The courts have in addition appropriated for themselves the right to effectively control the ability to set their salaries, a matter which the Constitution Act, 1867, specifically left to parliament.

The decision of the courts purported to find a new constitutional obligation to require the legislatures to set up a commission to establish the salaries for provincially appointed judges. The supreme court, which was called upon to confirm this process, not only did so but included a newfound constitutional obligation requiring parliament to follow a similar process when it came to setting salaries for federally appointed judges.

Although the fiction is that parliament can exercise its own judgment in respect to the salaries recommended by the committees, in reality the judges simply overturn those legislated decisions where they disagree with them. One need look no further than the Alberta legislature for a very practical demonstration of the court's powers.

This is simply a case of judges discovering new constitutional principles that benefit themselves financially without political accountability or, as one of my constituents observed in describing the case, “the judges paying the judge's case”.

This newfound constitutional process that the judges discovered further decreased parliamentary responsibility for the expenditure of public funds and moves toward the creation of an economically independent judiciary with its own political agenda.

A recent letter to Maclean's magazine by a Mr. W. J. Jack of Innisfil, Ontario, noted:

It seems to me that members of Parliament no longer want to or can't make laws that work, so they let appointed judges do that job. If the Supreme Court is going to legislate, we won't need elections, except to vote for one person who would then appoint the members of the court. This would save taxpayers a lot of money, and we'd still have the one-man-rule system that we have today.

Coupled with the self-granting powers under the charter and an executive appointed judiciary as we now have, I would argue the courts can be and often are used to advance the political agenda of a government in a particular direction without consultation with the members of parliament who are accountable to the people of Canada and who represent their interests.

Judicial activism is all too common in our courts. Many if not most Canadians would agree that it must remain the responsibility of parliament to debate and ultimately resolve the political, economic and social issues that govern all our lives.

However over the past two decades judges supreme court justices in particular have to varying degrees engaged in a frenzy of constitutional experimentation that resulted in the judiciary substituting its legal and social preferences for those of the elected representatives of the people in parliament and the legislatures.

A leader in this judicial activism was the former Chief Justice of Canada, Antonio Lamer. Although he is now retired, the decisions he wrote or participated in will continue to impact on the principles and institutions of our democracy. Unfortunately that impact has been at an alarming cost to our democracy and to the public safety and security of our citizens.

Another member of the court has recently added his concern to the direction of the supreme court and the judicial activism of the former chief justice. Mr. Justice Bastarache has warned the nation of the dangers of the judicial government favoured by the former chief justice. In contrast to the former chief justice, Justice Bastarache has committed himself to an interpretation of the charter of rights and freedoms that pays respect to democratic principles and institutions.

The House and the people of Canada should commend Mr. Justice Bastarache and other jurists who recognize the dangers of the legal and constitutional anarchy reflected in the judgments of the former chief justice. Our democratic principles and institutions are too important to be hijacked by a non-elected political judiciary.

Let us consider for a moment a recent high profile supreme court decision that typifies the issue. In Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay the supreme court in effect removed the justice minister's parliamentary prerogative of choosing whether or not to seek assurances before extraditing alleged criminals facing the death penalty in another country, the United States or otherwise.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue of capital punishment, the court has attempted to deprive parliament of debating the issue further. The court has overridden Canada's law as written by parliament and has chosen to push its political agenda to the forefront by opening Canada's borders to violent criminals.

That is not just my characterization. The day after the Rafay and Burns decision was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada the lawyers for the Minister of Justice, in another related case, stood before the court and said that the impact of the decisions was to create safe havens for criminals.

According to the precedent set in previous supreme court rulings, the minister had only been required to seek guarantees when the possibility of the death penalty would shock the conscience or otherwise outrage standards of decency.

In this decision, the supreme court has attempted to reconcile its new position with its 1991 precedent. However, in actual fact it has rewritten the law. The recent ruling stipulated that the Minister of Justice was required to seek guarantees prior to the extradition of Rafay and Burns and in the future on all accused of such crimes.

Our extradition treaty with the United States has also been effectively rewritten. One might think that the practical effect of extraditing these individuals, if they are convicted in the state of Washington, is that they would face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. That is only technically true. If they are convicted and all appeals are exhausted, they become automatically eligible for the prisoner exchange program. They then come back to Canada where the maximum sentence is 25 years before eligibility for parole and, with the faint hope clause, they can apply for parole after 15 years.

Taking into account that these individuals have already been held for six or seven years, if they were successful under the faint hope clause they would be on the streets after eight years. If in fact they are the people who brutally killed three American citizens for insurance money, the practical consequence of their crime would be eight years.

This is not an issue about the death penalty. This is the circumvention of parliament by refusing to allow parliament to have a say in the laws that govern crime in Canada. This is an abdication of our responsibility. Our responsibility has been taken away by the Supreme Court of Canada which has its own political agenda when it comes to criminal law.

In Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay the supreme court has prevented any legislative attempt to reintroduce capital punishment in Canada. This is regardless of where one stands on the issue. Our party does not have a position on capital punishment. The court's decision effectively says that the elected people of Canada can never make the decision because it is constitutionally prohibited. The political reason given was that the practice is unjust and should be stopped. That is not a legal judgment. That is a political decision.

Again, regardless of where one stands on the issue, it is a decision for parliament and its elected representatives to make. Regardless of the convictions of the court, amending Canada's laws and treaties for policy reasons should be the responsibility of parliament and not the courts.

Former Chief Justice Lamer's judicial activism is not in harmony with the democratic principles of Canada, regardless of whether we oppose or defend the cause that the court may support. People might say that it is a good decision regardless of it being a political one.

The decisions of the court on political matters short-circuit the process, undermine the authority of parliament and bring the institution of parliament into disrepute. It is not that it insults parliamentarians, it insults the people who elected parliamentarians to make these decisions on their behalf.

While this issue is a major concern, it is far from being the only problem in our judicial system that requires the attention of parliament. Another such issue is related to the appointment process.

It is interesting to note that the last bill to amend the Judges Act, Bill C-37 from the 36th parliament, created the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission which provided the federal government with yet another opportunity to make patronage appointments. The commission consists of three members appointed by the governor in council and it should be noted who nominates these three: One is nominated by the judiciary; one is nominated by the Minister of Justice; and one, who acts as a chair, is nominated by the first two persons nominated.

The failure of the bill to introduce any changes in the appointment process means that important and high paying positions in our court system will remain essentially part of the patronage system.

The Canadian Alliance would like to see the patronage appointment process overhauled to make it more transparent and publicly accountable. One option would be to strike a committee that would review and interview candidates whose names would be put forward to the Prime Minister. The input of the provinces, which are affected directly by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, is required in these matters.

Another concern I have with the bill is that the increase in pay for federally appointed judges is higher than the federal government is prepared to grant the much lower paid civil service. It lately has been the practice of the government to grant raises to senior officers in the military, senior bureaucrats and now judges while dragging its feet on a general salary increase for staff.

While we do not dispute that salaries for appointed judges and others should generally be in line with the private sector, it is apparent that the foot soldiers of our justice system are being ignored.

What we propose is an independent and publicly accountable judiciary that would act as a safeguard to protect Canadians from the arbitrary power of the state. However it must remain the responsibility of parliament, not the courts, to debate and assess the conflicting objectives inherent in public policy development.

This bill, like its predecessors, deals solely with the administrative aspects of the courts and does not address the multitude of concerns that many Canadians have with the judicial system. Therefore, my colleagues and I strongly oppose the bill.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in December of last year, shortly after the federal election, I was going through an Ottawa Citizen article which mentioned that Canadian judges would be receiving a $19 million pay raise that would boost their income 11.2% on average to more than $205,000.

The 11.2% awarded on December 13, 2000, was according to that news article quoting a justice department lawyer a compromise between the 26.3% that the judges were asking for and the demands of taxpayers to keep costs down. Government justice lawyer Judith Bellis had taken the view that the 11.2% was in the range of reasonable.

Bill C-12, the subject of today's debate, enacts that 11.2% pay raise, thereby raising the salaries of approximately 1,013 federally appointed judges who sit on provincial superior courts and courts of appeal, as well as the tax courts and the Supreme Court of Canada.

The increase, retroactive to April 1, 2000, will raise the base salary from $179,200 to $198,000 for judges who sit on appeal courts and superior courts in each province. The salaries for the chief justices in those courts will rise to $217,000 from $196,500. The same rates will also apply to federal court judges.

The judges on the Supreme Court of Canada will remain the highest paid. The eight regular judges will see an increase to $235,700 from $213,000, while Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's salary will jump to $254,000 from $230,200.

It is important to note that while the government considers this raise reasonable, the official opposition views it as extremely generous considering senior public servants have received raises of no more than 5.7%. As well, the pay of public servants is not indexed, while the pay and salaries of judges are. We on this side of the House, therefore, are opposed to Bill C-12.

For the information of other new members of the House, I would like to point out this is not the first time the Liberal government has tried to amend the Judges Act. In fact, this is the fourth time the Liberals have come forward and made changes to the act.

Originally in 1996, Bill C-2 and Bill C-42, both if I may paraphrase a former member of the House, were described as being nebulous, inconsequential pieces of legislation with little significance to Canadians who were genuinely concerned about their safety, as opposed to the simple administrative matters that these bills brought forward.

In April 1998 Bill C-37 was introduced to establish the judicial compensation and benefits commission. The compensation commission was set up as an independent advisory body after the supreme court ruled that judges' salaries were constitutionally protected and the previous system of setting pay was inadequate.

Bill C-37, increasing judges' salaries retroactively, provided them with an 8.3% pay increase over those two years. Translated into dollars, this meant an average $13,000 pay increase for federal judges with salaries increasing from $159,000 to over $172,000.

I do not know of any other federal public servant, or any hard-working Canadian citizen, who received a $13,000 pay increase in 1998. While the Liberal government and the Tories were voting in favour of the huge pay increase, Canadians' incomes were on a steady decline.

Members on this side of the House, with the exception of the Progressive Conservative Party, opposed the bill. Members on the other side of the House wrongfully insisted that our opposition to the bill was “the ravings of ill-informed and ill-prepared men of parliament who contributed to the ill-repute of the justice system”. The truth is that my party holds the judiciary in high esteem. We were opposed to Bill C-37 and we are opposed to Bill C-12, based on the fact that other senior public servants, lower level public employees and other Canadian workers had not and will not be awarded such generous increases.

In the same year that federal judges were being awarded these huge salary increases, comparatively Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers, who had had their salaries and wages frozen for five years, were granted an increase of 2% in March 1998, retroactive to January. A second pay increase was given to them in April 1998 and toward the end of that year they received another three-quarter per cent increase. Over the five years that they had been frozen, and in the next year of 1998, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police saw an increase of three and three-quarter per cent. They are on the front lines putting their lives in jeopardy. The average three year constable received less than $2,000 over those years.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that the former member of Crowfoot put forward an amendment to Bill C-37 that was supported and passed in the House during report stage. That amendment ensured that every four years the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had the opportunity to review the report of the commission on judges' salaries and benefits. The task would not be left solely to the Minister of Justice as was originally contemplated by the Liberal government.

It would be negligent of me if I also did not recognize the thorough job the Senate did in reviewing Bill C-37, the pre-emptive bill to Bill C-12, and the substantive amendments that it brought forward at the upper house.

In particular, I would like to single out the efforts of Senator Anne Cools for her diligent efforts in revealing the many inadequacies of Bill C-37. Senator Cools apparently exposed the fact that Bill C-37 would effectively allow judges to set their own wages, salaries and benefits and in so doing would set up the possibility of there being a show down between parliament and the judiciary. It would allow judges to appeal parliament's decision regarding a recommendation of the salary increase put forward in the courts. Essentially the judges would have the final say over whether or not parliamentarians were giving them a sufficient raise.

Although former judicial pay commissioner David Scott said it was unlikely that judges would ever be setting their own salaries, he would not rule out the possibility of the judiciary challenging parliament's response to the commission's recommendations for a pay increase or for reducing pay.

The judiciary would have to prove, however, in a court that the refusal to increase salaries or a decision to lower them was motivated by a wish to diminish the independence of judges. Mr. Scott said that even if the judges won in such a case, the court could only declare parliament's motion on the issue void and that would result in a stalemate. As pointed out by the Liberal senator, this would “deprive Canadians of their undoubted constitutional right to parliament's control over the public purse in respect to the judiciary”.

Clearly, the control of the public purse rests with the elected members of parliament and not with the unelected members of the judiciary.

Section 100 of the 1867, Constitution Act, states in part that the salaries, allowances and pensions of the judges shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada. Clause 6 of Bill C-37 potentially abolished parliament's role in fixing judges' salaries.

Obviously we must question why the Minister of Justice at that time was so willing to bestow such potentially wielding powers on the judiciary through Bill C-37. One can only surmise, and again I use the words of Senator Cools when she said:

The real intent (of Bill C-37) is to remove parliament from the process.... There is a problem in that certain particular judges seem to crave a closeness to certain individuals in the Department of Justice and are trying to cling, closer and closer, to the executive rather than to parliament.

She went on to say to the Senate:

In other words, honourable senators, what is happening here is that 200 years of history are being turned on their head, and we are being told in this judgment that, quite frankly, judges prefer their fate to be in the hands of the executive rather than in the hands of parliament. It is a most curious and interesting subject matter.

It is more than curious and interesting, it is fearful.

Bill C-37, which was also an act to amend the Judges Act as it was originally drafted by the Department of Justice, had another problem. It created a legal right for a judge to have two spouses. The two spouses clause was meant to deal with circumstances in which a married judge, who was separated from his or her wife or husband and was living common law with another person, died. It would have allowed a judge to have both spouses, married and common law, to be eligible for the lucrative pension. In addition, the common law spouse would collect a one time payout of one-sixth of the judge's annual salary at the time of his or her passing.

Former supreme court Justice William Estey said that this particular section of Bill C-37 would “give his former colleagues on the bench the right to a kind of homemade harem. It would effectively create two separate sets of family law, one for the judges and one for everyone else”.

During debate on this legislation it was noted that the situations such as the contemplated one in Bill C-37 were rare. Therefore, questions arose as to why such a clause was put into Bill C-37. Critics suggested that this particular clause was tailor made for Chief Justice LeSage who was separated from his wife and had resided for about a year with Judge Lang. If Chief Justice LeSage were to die, the new amendment would have allowed both Judge Lang and Mrs. LeSage to qualify as his surviving spouse and share his pension.

As pointed out by Senator Cools during the debate, Bill C-37 appeared tailor fit to particular individuals. Senator Cools said “We have a situation in this country where individuals have access to the legislative writing machine”. Senator Cools said that it was very bothersome. Again, that is more than bothersome. That is a huge concern.

I understand that Bill C-37 was not the first time that the government has tailor made legislation to amend the Judges Act. Bill C-42, as mentioned earlier, also amended the Judges Act. It changed the pension scheme and working conditions of the federally appointed judiciary. In particular, it set out the terms on which Canadian judges could participate in international activities.

Although it was never explicitly admitted by the House or by the government, it was no secret that these amendments to the Judges Act arose due to the 1996 appointment of then Madam Justice Louise Arbour to the United Nations as a prosecutor for its special war crimes division.

Apparently opposition members naively agreed in June of that year, just before the House recessed for the summer, without any debate in the House, without any debate at committee, to pass Bill C-42 after being assured by the former justice minister that it was a simple innocuous housekeeping bill. It was not until the amended bill was returned from the Senate and the testimony of witnesses that appeared before the Senate committee were made known that my colleagues realized that Bill C-42, as claimed by legal experts, had “the appearance of transgressing the vital principle of judicial impartiality”, the very principle that our Minister of Justice has just spoken on.

In particular, I refer to the testimony of Professor Morton:

The government is concerned, as well it should be, with the current status of Justice Arbour and the implications of her status for those responsible at justice. The government seems to hope that by passing Bill C-42 as quickly as possible it can retroactively legitimate apparent indiscretions by Justice Arbour and possibly others—

It would appear that Justice Arbour agreed to the appointment before it had been approved by the Minister of Justice (or any other officials), thereby forcing the minister to react to a fait accompli. Furthermore, it then appears that the minister, rather than recommending to Justice Arbour that she postpone her new activities (at the Hague) pending necessary amendments to the Judges Act, sought to temporarily legitimate her actions by an order in council; and then (because the order in council is conceded to be insufficient) sought to retroactively legitimate Justice Arbour's new employment with general amendments to the Judges Act, Bill C-42, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament.

Professor Morton added:

No doubt some will say that this is nit-picking. My response is simple. If the justice minister and appeal court judges cannot be expected to comply with the letter of the law, then who can?...Indeed within the last month the justice minister himself pronounced on the meaning and the importance of the rule of the law. The rule of the law is “a living” principle that is fundamental to our democratic way of life. In substance it means that everyone in our society, including ministers of government, premiers, the rich and powerful and the ordinary citizen alike, is governed by the same law of the land.

While one section of Bill C-42 at that point in time appeared tailor made for Arbour, another section of that very same bill was apparently designed for the then chief justice of the supreme court in that it offered an unprecedented pension benefit to the chief justice and his wife at the very time when the top court was considering the most politically sensitive case of the decade, perhaps of confederation, whether Quebec had a constitutional right to secede from Canada.

The proposed changes did away with the prohibition on judicial double-dipping. Previously a retired judge received a pension equal to two-thirds of his annual salary; on average, about $104,000. When he died, his spouse collected a survivor's pension worth one-third of his salary or $52,000, provided that she was not a retired judge.

Under the new law retired judge spouses will collect both, thus receiving a total pension equivalent to their salary before retirement. The most obvious beneficiary of the change was Chief Justice Lamer and his wife, Federal Court of Canada Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer.

With regard to this section of Bill C-42, Professor Morton said:

Without imputing any illicit motive to anyone involved—the timing of this proposed change could not be worse.

Morton also said that sceptics would claim:

It is unacceptable that a chief justice who is about to benefit from the minister's proposed pension policy change now sits in judgment of the minister's Quebec reference—the most politically sensitive constitutional case of the decade.

In closing, I would assure the House and Canadians in general that the official opposition will closely scrutinize Bill C-12. In particular, we will review the provision of the bill that changes the annuities scheme.

I am not a financial expert. I am not an expert on annuities or the pay schedules that are put forward in the bill. Without the advantage of expert advice at this stage, what appears to happen is that the changes being made to the Judges Act allow a judge who is married for the second time to another judge after the death of his or her first spouse, also a judge, to collect both or two survivor benefits upon the death of the second spouse. One could only guess why the government is contemplating such a rare and highly unlikely situation.

As we have already mentioned, four times the Liberal government has come to make amendments to the Judges Act. We have seen time and time again where the government has tailor made legislation to fit certain individuals and certain situations. We will also assure the House and Canadians in general that Bill C-12 is not tailor made to any individuals. If it were, it would definitely compromise the impartiality of our judiciary.

Employment Insurance

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is not fooling anyone. Some $35 billion were grabbed from the EI fund to make the finance minister's surplus look good. One million unemployed Canadians who paid into EI cannot get benefits. Many who do qualify still cannot make ends meet because the benefits are so low. Bill C-2 will not address this issue.

The finance minister is like the princess with the pea. No matter how thick his cushion is he wants more, more, more. The auditor general says this sort of financial mismanagement causes waste and inefficiency. How much more does the finance minister plan to take from the EI fund. If $35 billion is not enough, how much is?

Privilege

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the opposition House leader, the hon. member for Fraser Valley, on February 13, 2001.

Subsequent to the adoption of a time allocation motion in relation to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and employment insurance regulations, the hon. member rose on a question of privilege to express his concern and dismay about the frequency with which the government had resorted to time allocation to cut off debate prematurely on legislation during the 35th and 36th parliaments, a trend he believes is to continue in the present parliament. The hon. member claimed that the government's use of time allocation was a misuse of its authority and that the time had come “to declare the measures imposed by the government today as excessive and unorthodox”.

The hon. member argued that the Speaker has the authority to refuse to put a time allocation motion if, in his judgment, the government is abusing its powers and the rules of the House by not allowing sufficient amount of time for debate. He concluded his argument by suggesting that the Speaker consider the amount of authority and discretion available to the Chair to decide not to propose to the House a motion of time allocation if there has not been a sufficient period of time for debate.

I wish to thank the hon. government House leader, the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Roberval, the House leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, and the hon. member for St. Albert for their interventions.

The request that is being made of the Chair in this instance is one which places me in a position of some delicacy. It is, of course, true that the Chair uses its discretion on every occasion on which it intervenes. That is not to say, however, that rulings are made simply on the Speaker's personal authority. Nothing could be further from the truth. House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, at page 570, and I quote:

—the Speaker has ruled that the Chair possesses no discretionary authority to refuse to put a motion of time allocation if all the procedural exigencies have been observed.

In a ruling on a similar case, Speaker Fraser said, at Debates , March 31, 1993, page 17860:

—it is not always understood that the Chair is constrained in what the Chair can do by the rules which this House has passed. It is not surprising that sometimes some hon. Members, or even members of the public, feel that the rules we have set for ourselves may in some cases be unreasonable or even worse. However, it is extremely important I think that the Chair be bound by those rules until the House decides to change them.

In the case which gave rise to the point which I am addressing, there has been no suggestion that the government in any way deviated from the procedure laid out in the standing orders. I do not feel, under those circumstances, that there are any grounds whatsoever which would lead the Chair to intervene. The Chair wishes to be very clear on this point. The rules and practices established by this House with respect to time allocation leave the Speaker with no alternative in this matter. Speaker Fraser said in the case to which I have already referred, at Debates March 31, 1993, page 17861:

I have to advise the House that the rule is clear. It is within the government's discretion to use it. I cannot find any lawful way that I can exercise a discretion which would unilaterally break a very specific rule.

In making this ruling, Speaker Fraser was faced with arguments very close to those before us in the present case.

The question of the extent of the Speaker's authority has been raised and reference has been made to the practice in the United Kingdom. The government House leader indicated in his comments on this question that in other jurisdictions greater use is made of the scheduling of work both in the House and in committee. It may be that the House is no longer satisfied with the manner in which the time allocation rule works. If that is so, it is for the House to consider and, ultimately, to determine what procedure will best suit its current circumstances. Planning done on the basis of consensus could be a significant benefit, not only for the business of the House but also in promoting an atmosphere of decorum and respect in which that business is conducted.

Our system has always been one which functions on the basis of rules established by the House itself. However, under our current standing orders, it would be highly inappropriate for the Chair to take unilateral action on issues already provided for in the standing orders. Where the standing orders gives the Speaker some discretion, then it is the Speaker's responsibility to be guided accordingly; where no such guidance is provided, no such action can be taken. It is certainly not up to the Chair to establish a timetable for the business of the House.

It is by its rules and not by the authority of the Speaker that the House protects itself from excesses, both on the government side and on that of the opposition. The Speaker's role is to judge each case as it arises, fairly and objectively, and in so doing, to ensure that those rules are applied as the House intended.

Speaker Lamoureux, when faced with a similar situation stated in Journals July 24, 1969, page 1398:

The Speaker is the servant of the House. Honourable Members may want me to be the master of the House today but tomorrow, when, perhaps in other circumstances I might claim this privilege, they might have a different opinion—I am not prepared at this time to take this responsibility on my shoulders. I think it is my duty to rule on such matters in accordance with the rules, regulations and standing orders which honourable Members themselves have turned over to the Speaker to administer.

I would also like to remind the House that the standing order with respect to time allocation has been invoked only once in this, the 37th Parliament. I have indicated clearly that this use of the standing order does not represent a matter of privilege. If further cases arise, the Chair will deal with them individually, on their merits. I remind the House that the Chair will not rule on hypothetical cases or on questions raised only in the abstract.

Once again, I would like to thank hon. Members for their carefully considered arguments on this question. The Chair is conscious of the importance which members on both sides of the House attach to it.

Standing Orders

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to some of the members opposite and I half expect someone in a red or blue cape to come flying through here. They just have all the solutions and all the answers. Frankly, I find it a little bit tiresome and a little bit frustrating.

First, here are a couple of facts. We are sitting here and it is 9.15 p.m. On a normal sitting day the House would have been recessed by approximately 6.30 p.m. We will be here until 11.30 or 12 o'clock tonight at least. Just so people know, the cost to run this place beyond the regular hour is somewhere around $25,000 per hour. The debate this evening will cost the Canadian taxpayer, for whom I assume my friend from the Bloc could not care less, about $125,000. I just wanted to make the cost clear.

Why do we have the motion? Other members have stood up and said to speak to the motion. We have sat in this place through 24 hours of not debating and not talking but simply voting on motions that would make absolutely no difference to the legislation or to the quality of the legislation. They would have no impact on the end product. They do nothing more than delay. To sit here doing that is not just a waste of money, it is an abuse of the democratic system.

If members opposite want to talk about ways to reform this place, why do we not start with this motion? The motion is indeed parliamentary reform. The motion says to my hon. friends opposite that if they want to filibuster and stand in their place and talk with at least a modicum of intelligence about the particular issue involved they can do so. They have that opportunity. In the good old days, filibuster meant talking out the issue, debating.

When I was a member of the Ontario legislature I recall sitting through filibusters that would last a day or two. I may not have liked it or agreed with it but I had to respect the ability of parliamentarians to stand in their place in opposition to the government of the day. Whether we were members of the opposition or members of the government, we had to respect the ability of the individual to stay on topic and talk about the issue that was of concern to their constituents and, in that example, to the people of the entire province, and in this example, all of Canada.

What have we had? We have had a major debate. The one that comes to mind is the Nisga'a treaty. The opposition did not agree with us. It did not like the treaty and did not like what we were doing. I did not have a problem with that. It is totally within its rights and its purview to disagree with us.

However, the opposition submitted hundreds of amendments that were—and I love the word—vexatious, which means annoying. They did not change the treaty one bit and did not change the outcome of the government legislation one iota. They simply required the government to stay here and vote on periods, commas and semicolons.

Now, really, is that what Canadians elected any of us in this place to do? Absolutely not. Canadians may have some respect for a member opposite who could stand up and clause by clause, line by line, word by word, go through that particular bill and explain to the Canadian public why he or she is against a particular bill.

I do not care what bill it is. I have served in opposition and I have served in government. I respect the responsibility and the important role that opposition must play in this kind of democracy.

What bothers me, though, is that when the opposition today does not like what the government is doing it says that it does not like the process. When it says it does not like the process means it lost. Rather than argue the substantive impact of the motion, the bill or the document before parliament, members of the opposition cry foul that somehow the big, bad Prime Minister whipped them. He has chains and runs racks in the back room where they are tortured mercilessly. Their brains are taken and put in jars somewhere when they arrive. They just denigrate the role of MPs.

When I am here in the nation's capital as a member of parliament, like many of my colleagues on all sides of the House I work between 12 and 18 hours a day. Our day starts very early with committee meetings, working in caucuses and working with opposition members. We find quite interestingly that in spite of the theatre which goes on in here, when we get members of parliament from all across Canada sitting in committee talking over issues they can actually be reasonable. I wonder why they are not like that in the House of Commons. Why can we not work together?

Someone from the NDP asked when we would start to work together. I was at the HRDC committee the other day talking about Bill C-2 and changes to the employment insurance bill. At that time I questioned the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the construction trade unions that were before us.

I asked the chamber why, when the country is in a recession, when the government supports all people who lose their jobs and when the EI account is in major deficit, we do not hear from it? Why does it not say that it knows the account is in deficit and it will pay more? We do not hear from the chamber in that instance, because it is the responsibility of the government to be the insurer of last resort.

Is that a question that someone might expect from a government member? I think not, because I think some of the more socialist minded folks might agree. Some of the more right wing people might not agree. They might think I was being hard and harsh on the poor chamber of commerce. I see at committee all the time where we cross on issues.

The member opposite doing most of the chirping served with me on the citizenship and immigration committee for some time. With the odd exception, when that member decided to ignore the rules of parliament and released a document to the media before it was tabled in the House, for which he was properly chastised by the Speaker of the day, I found that he tried to work and to deal with issues of concern around the citizenship bill and around refugees. He tried to put forward from time to time some thoughtful comments in debate.

Why is it that after we have gone through the process of losing whatever is the issue of the day—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I will say it again. He said that I am going to have a heart attack. If I have a heart attack because I am working for the people of Acadie—Bathurst, I might as well drop now and I will be proud of it. He should not worry about me. I will take care of myself.

It is important that the government stop playing these games. It must give an opportunity to the other parties to do their job.

It is a disgrace. The Liberals' excuse is that the opposition did not want to pass Bill C-2 on employment insurance. They came up with a measly 5% when people back home are in the gap from February to May. Yet they know we need to get rid of the intensity rule. As for us, in the opposition, we will act responsibly. We will represent our constituents.

The government has no business saying we are abusers. I will never accept that from members opposite. I will never accept this, because I was elected to represent the people of Acadie—Bathurst, and I am going to represent them to the best of my ability. I am not going to be swayed and intimidated by the people across the way, by the Liberals, I guarantee it.

This is a democracy. This is not the United Kingdom; this is Canada. We do not need to follow the example of the United Kingdom. We can build on our own experience and work together. I am sure that if we were to sit down at the same table and try to find solutions to certain problems, we would come up with results.

Maybe if the opposition turns up with a string of amendments, it is because the government's bill does not make any sense. What can the opposition do?

I recall one tactic that was used once: one opposition party refused to enter the House of Commons. They ignored three or four bells. Some will say that this was perhaps not right, but others will say that at least they made their point and that Canadians had a chance to hear it.

The Canadian Alliance introduced 471 amendments to the Nisga'a bill.

I was happy to be able to vote against it 471 times. I thought I had earned my paycheque. I think that, after that, the Canadian Alliance understood that Canadians did not want these amendments.

The thing is that we were able to put our democracy to work in the House of Commons, and we do not need the Liberals to shut us up. That is one thing that we will not stand for.

I appreciate whatever little time I was given by the Chair. Hopefully, the Liberals will change their minds by 11 p.m. this evening, restore democracy to the House of Commons, and stop being a gang of dictators.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, first I could say that I am pleased to rise in the House this evening to speak to this motion, but, at the same time, it is unfortunate that we are once again taking a step backwards with respect to democracy here in Canada. It is truly a step backwards; we have a lovely House of Commons here so that we can make the laws of the land, introduce bills and motions, and govern the country.

We have the Liberal government across the way, saying “There must be respect for the House of Commons, but we are going to silence the opposition. We are going to take the opposition's privileges away”. It is sad to see a party which, if I recall correctly, around 1988-89, when it was in opposition, was glad to be able to rise in the House of Commons and debate bills. The Liberals were glad to be able to make amendments to bills. Back then they did not like it one bit when the Progressive Conservatives tried to stop them.

We all remember the GST bill. The Liberals turned up with a whole string of amendments. Did the government of the day tell them they were abusing the system, abusing parliament, because they wanted to do their job? It is a disgrace that in 2001, particularly after the 2000 election, the government says it is going to be open to parliamentary reform. It says it will sit down in parliament, and we are going to be able to discuss and look at parliamentary reform together.

This evening, they turn up here with a motion. They want to shut up the opposition again, but I believe we have a role to play in democracy. We too are capable of shouldering our responsibilities. If the government means to say that the opposition is not assuming its responsibilities because there supposedly were 100 or 200 amendments to a bill, is the government assuming its responsibilities when it closes down debate as it has been doing in recent years?

My colleague from Mississauga asks whether we did not want Bill C-2 on employment insurance reform, whether we were not anxious for it to get passed. Yes, I am anxious to see a bill on employment insurance reform passed. I want to see it passed, but as the member representing Acadie—Bathurst, I would like to be able to rise in the House of Commons and explain the problems and loopholes Bill C-2 contains.

That is why I was elected. I was elected to do that job and to assume those responsibilities. I was elected to be able to attend parliamentary committees, assume my responsibilities, and bring up the problems that Bill C-2 brings us. I was elected to be able to introduce motions in the House of Commons, to be able to make amendments to Bill C-2, which does not go far enough. I was elected to do all that in the House of Commons. This seat belongs to Acadie—Bathurst. It does not belong to the member, but to the people of Acadie—Bathurst. Because of that, I ought to be able to stand up and be heard in committee. I ought to be able to make amendments to government bills.

Canada does not belong to the Liberals alone. It belongs to all Canadians. Canadians chose to send members to the House to represent them.

It is unfortunate. When the Bill C-2 was introduced into the House, there was only one day of debate and that was it. It is shameful.

The Liberals have just told us we abuse the system on this side of the House. Yet, in the case of their bill on young offenders, the Liberals had over 100 amendments, and they hold the power. Shall we call them abusers because they drafted a bad bill and realized they had missed the boat?

I do not think it costs the government any more if I am here this evening debating one of its motions. That is why I was elected. I was not elected to go home, but to be here to debate the problems of concern to Canadians and the people of my riding.

I think the government's attitude is unfortunate. It is an insult to watch the member for Waterloo—Wellington rise and try, if I can put it this way, to crucify the entire opposition. They say “You are wicked, you are not acting properly, you are abusers”.

Are we going to call them abusers because we had to call for quorum as the government members were not here? Each time opposition members rise and look for what they are entitled to, they are called abusers. Yet the Liberals did the same thing when they were in opposition; they tried to draw the government's attention to the fact that it was headed in the wrong direction. That is what the opposition wanted to do; it was trying to convince the government that it was not going in the right direction.

With this motion, they are not acting properly. The Liberals will not wait to undertake parliamentary reform together with us, and debate it in committee.

I am the New Democratic Party whip. The whips and House leaders of all the parties thought that parliamentary reform would take place. All of sudden, the government House leader comes up with a motion that basically says “You are a bunch of abusers, we will pass a motion”. Whatever happened to democracy? Were we not supposed to work together?

When you were on this side of the House—

Canada Elections Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Bill C-9, the Liberal government's proposed changes to the Canada Elections Act.

The purpose of Bill C-9 is to amend the Canada Elections Act which became law on September 1, 2000. The Liberals passed the bill only a few months ago, but we are correcting their mistakes.

We are doing the work today that we asked them to do in the 36th parliament. We do not mind helping them again to do their homework, but we are disappointed that Canadians did not choose to send us to Ottawa to do our work, because we would have done our work right the first time.

Bill C-9 will overturn the current law that requires a party to have at least 50 candidates before it can be identified as a political party on the election ballot. The Liberals will now require parties to possess 12 candidates in order to be recognized as political parties and be entitled to certain benefits and privileges.

Only registered parties are eligible to obtain the final list of electors, to obtain free broadcast time for political announcements and to issue tax receipts to donors on behalf of the party. Only registered parties are entitled to such benefits and privileges.

Canada's chief electoral officer confirms the number of candidates. The 12 candidate minimum conforms to the requirement that a party have at least 12 members of parliament to receive official status in the House of Commons, as the fifth party has.

Let me explain how the Liberals arrived at the magic number of 12. The Liberals are trying to make it as hard as possible for any political group to challenge them at the ballot box. In their twisted logic they have figured out that they would be too ashamed and embarrassed to make the required number of seats any higher than the number of seats required by the House for a party to qualify to be recognized as a political party.

I am sure that members will remember that in the last parliament the Liberals originally set the bar high at 50. It is a lot more difficult to field 50 candidates in an election than 12 or so. The Liberals like the number 50. They were crushing a number of parties and preventing them from qualifying for certain privileges and benefits. They have been forced to lower the bar and to allow smaller parties to have a greater level of participation in our democracy.

In the last parliament the Liberals kept the bar high at 50 candidates for what they knew would be the last time. In the most recent election the Liberals could put in a fix by denying parties with less than 50 candidates from being major political parties in Canada.

Before the Liberals passed the previous Canada Elections Act during the last parliament, the official opposition warned the Liberal government that the 50 candidate rule should be dropped. We told them upfront, but who listens on the other side? I spoke to that bill in various debates in the last parliament.

We had the approval of most of Canada's smaller political parties for the proposal, but the Liberals did not listen at that time. It appears perhaps that they are listening now.

Even so, parties with 12 candidates will be allowed to have their party's name on ballots but will still not be able, as will parties with 50 candidates, to provide donors with tax receipts, to access the list of electors or to obtain free broadcasting time on TV.

Those three things are crucial for a political party to be able campaign and to have its message communicated across the country. Those three things are very important, and parties with 12 members will not be entitled to such privileges.

With Bill C-9, the bill we are debating today, the government would create two tiers of political parties with different sets of privileges. On one hand, registered political parties with 50 or more candidates would possess all possible benefits. On the other hand, political parties with less than 50 candidates would possess few benefits other than having their name on the ballot if they have at least 12 candidates.

Bill C-9 continues to discriminate against smaller parties. It is not only undemocratic, it is anti-democratic as well. The Canada Elections Act should be neutral and should treat everyone equally and fairly. Canadian voters, not the government, should decide whether a political party or candidate is worthy of their vote. It should not be up to the government to decide, it should be up to Canadians.

The Liberals are trying to pass the legislation because a court case has necessitated changes to the Canada Elections Act. As the House will recall, in my speech in the last parliament I warned the House of possible legal action. I told the Liberals that they were exposing the Canada Elections Act to a legal tussle, and now here it is. If they had listened at the time this probably would not have happened.

The Ontario Court of Appeal decided the case in August 2000. The court decided that the Canada Elections Act provisions concerning the identification of political parties on election ballots was invalid. The court said that the provisions were invalid and suspended its decision for six months, until February 16, 2001, so that parliament could address the court's decision.

If this had been done right the first time we would not be doing it again. We could be spending the valuable time of the House, as well as of the court, on something more important.

Bill C-9 also clarifies the calculations of the electoral expenses limit. If the revised list of electors differs from the original list, the candidate's expenses will be adjusted accordingly.

The reimbursement of election expenses is also covered in the bill. Under section 435 of Bill C-2, which was a bill in the previous parliament, only registered parties, and not the small parties we must define today, will be reimbursed for election expenses providing they obtain either 2% of the national vote or 5% of the votes in the ridings in which they endorse candidates. Those are two conditions parties must satisfy before they get any reimbursement for election expenses.

Bill C-9 does not amend the reimbursement of election expenses provision that was in Bill C-2 in the last parliament. Therefore this section will be discriminatory against smaller parties.

Again I am standing in the House and warning the government. It should get its act together and correct these mistakes so that the Canada Elections Act is neutral, fair and treats everyone equally.

The Canadian Alliance, and my colleagues on this side, proposed election rebates. We do not believe it is fair that only registered parties, and not the smaller political parties, are eligible for these benefits.

Another important point in the bill is the fundraising activities. If Bill C-9 is not amended, as we are asking, it will be difficult for the smaller parties to engage in fundraising activities.

Bill C-9 does not make amendments to the income tax provisions of Bill C-2 which was debated in the House and passed in the last parliament. The provisions are discriminatory. Receipts can be issued on behalf of registered parties during and in between elections. Whereas, candidates of non-registered political parties, the ones we talked about earlier, can only issue receipts during the writ period. How can they prepare themselves to have their messages conveyed to Canadians when they do not have enough resources? They are not permitted have fundraisers between elections.

During those 36 or 37 days they can receive funds and issue tax receipts to donors. Other than the writ period, they are not entitled to raise any funds or issue tax receipts. When tax receipts are not issued, it is very difficult to get money donated from someone to a political party or a political cause. That is very unfair.

I will move on to another point about asset liquidation. Under clause 394 of the former bill, Bill C-2, with respect to registered parties which failed to run 50 candidates, they become suspended and the assets of a suspended party need not be liquidated if the party applies for re-registration within six months. However, if they do not apply within those six months then they are suspended. Bill C-9 does not amend this very important provision. The Canadian Alliance does not believe that a party should have to liquidate its assets under any circumstances, which is exactly what the Ontario Court of Appeal decided.

The Liberal government may be facing another court challenge over this if this clause is not amended. We are telling the Liberal government what to do about this bill to avoid any potential lawsuits. Whether or not it listens to us is another story.

The voting process is another issue. Among other technical matters, Bill C-9 also stipulates that if the chief electoral officer wishes to examine alternative voting processes, such as electronic voting, the alternative cannot be used without the approval of the House of Commons and Senate committees. Why does the chief electoral officer, who is supposed to monitor elections in Canada, have to get permission for electoral alternative electronic voting, for example, or other alternative methods to make the process efficient and effective?

There are some other changes in the bill but most of them are housekeeping changes. Under the current legislation, only the approval of the House of Commons committee is required. This sounds to me like a way to prevent change, but I will reserve my comments and allow the committee that will hear this bill, and many witnesses over time, to decide what this section really means.

I look forward in seeing how the committee proceeds. I look forward to seeing whether it will give a fair chance to witnesses to come forward and whether or not its recommendations will be taken into consideration. The amendments to the former Bill C-2, which were discussed in the committee, were ignored.

Let me talk about the relationship of Bill C-9 to Canadian Alliance policy. Canadian Alliance policy states:

To improve the representative nature of our electoral system, we will consider electoral reforms, including proportional representation, the single transferable ballot, electronic voting, and fixed election dates, and we will submit such options to voters in a nationwide referendum.

The government House leader is in charge of the bill. He was in charge of the last bill during the last session and did a very bad job. I apologize for making this comment, but all the good amendments which we proposed and those which were discussed in committee were not taken into consideration. Even when the red light was flashing signalling a warning that there might be some court actions, the House leader ignored it. Now, the House leader is heckling me on this.

While the bill does abandon the 50 candidate rule, it does not go far enough to democratize our electoral process. We believe all parties should be treated equally and fairly, not merely those with 50 or more candidates. All political parties should be treated fairly and equally. That is called real democracy.

The Canada Elections Act is a mess. Not only are the Liberals not learning fast enough, I do not know if they are learning at all. They do not have the political will to make a fair and level playing field for all political parties to contest an election.

The level playing field is very important. Equal opportunity for all political parties is very important but it is not there. The Liberals not only have it in the back of their minds but they also have it in the front of their minds to have an elections act that will benefit the governing party, which in this case is the Liberal Party. That is why they did not listen to the Alliance amendments in the last parliament and will try to ignore our amendments once again.

The bill maintains the most objectionable provisions of the Canada Elections Act. Our elections should be democratic, free and fair, offering equal opportunity to all candidates and all political parties. This would be a great way to start a new session of parliament.

The weak, arrogant and corrupt Liberal government that lacks vision is wasting an opportunity to modernize and democratize the patronage ridden Canada Elections Act. It has this opportunity again. Our election act is even worse than the election acts in developing countries and where this government's representatives go to monitor elections. If our own elections act is a mess, is not democratic, how can we send our representatives to developing countries to monitor their elections? I do not know if we are practising what we are preaching at home.

The members of the official opposition have proposed a number of worthwhile amendments to the bill. We will continue to do that. It is our job, not only to criticize the government, but also to propose amendments, suggest new ways and worthwhile change to open Liberals' eyes. As usual we are holding a flashlight for them but they are closing their eyes. They refuse to look when we shine the light into their intellectual darkness.

The Liberals resist change. That is why they do not want parliamentary reform. That is why they do not want to democratize our electoral system. The more I think about it, I am quite convinced that the Liberals' actions are not just undemocratic, they are anti-democratic. The government is the dictatorship of the 21st century. It is nothing short of a dictatorship when it will not accept amendments that would improve the system.

Employment Insurance

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, February 9, the television program Vr showed that the Minister of National Revenue, who is responsible for that part of the Employment Insurance Act, was not at all aware of the fact that it discriminates against employees working for their spouse or for a relative, by imposing on them the burden of proving their insurability, and by treating them like cheaters.

Since Bill C-2, which is currently under review, is silent on this discrimination, is the minister prepared to correct the section of the act that equates workers who are related to their employers with cheaters?

Canada Elections Act

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate and to note that this is an important piece of legislation. It is, in essence, the rules of engagement that apply to those who seek public office.

Although the bill has some rather particular aspects to it that are addressed in the overall scheme of things, I think it is timely, given that we have recently resumed this session of parliament and come through an election, that we look at how elections are conducted.

The bill, as has been noted, would amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. It is a bill that, as I indicated, deals substantially with two aspects that came out of a court case in the province of Ontario.

I begin my remarks by saying that it is good to see. I say with some sarcasm that the government has not changed the way it deals with legislation such as this in parliament. It is good to see that it has remained consistent and predictable. The government has treated this legislation, like many other pieces of legislation of this type, by not consulting. That is to say that it did not go to the effort of prior consultation with political parties in order to gain consensus, which was always the practice when it came to bills of this nature. It is disappointing and yet, as I indicated, it has become somewhat an expected attitude and approach on the part of the government.

The current Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands, served with great distinction on a special committee on electoral reform between 1991 and 1993 when he was a member of the opposition. A committee that was chaired by Mr. Jim Hawkes, the Progressive Conservative member from Calgary at that time, studied many of the same issues that we see before us.

That committee, in coming to its conclusions, stated quite emphatically that it would not report to the Chamber unless the recommendations were endorsed by all three political parties in existence at that time. There was an effort to recognize that consensus on issues such as this are extremely important. My, how times have changed.

However, in regard to this particular piece of legislation, the electoral act, changes have come before the Chamber since 1994 time and again without prior agreement, without consensus as to the content. That very much puts the government and this legislation, sadly, on shaky ground in terms of its legitimacy.

The last legislation of this type that came before parliament, Bill C-2 as it then was, was subjected to time allocation, which is of course again a practice that we have seen far too often in the past number of years. In fact, the trigger-happy government House leader has now used time allocation 69 times. Again, my, how times change. When the government House leader was a member of the opposition, it was so offensive to him and such an affront to democracy, yet a different attitude now prevails.

Turning back to the bill itself, I must admit that the changes now before us are reasonable in their content. They are changes that result from a court case that came out of the Ontario court of appeal. It bears noting that these changes will, I believe, enhance the current legislation, although I was hoping that in this parliament the first encounter we would have on a bill such as this, the first opportunity we would have to address this issue, would be met with perhaps a different attitude so that we would be able to deal with this problem of encountering each other in a different fashion. That does not appear to be the case.

One of the major problems, which was apparent to all Canadians and all parliamentarians, in the last election was the difficulty with the permanent voters list. We have heard a litany of stories of constituents who found that when they went to vote, to exercise their democratic right, a very important right and one that we all encourage in this legislation, their names were absent or there was some anomaly like not being listed at the appropriate polling station.

We all have to be very diligent. I hope this legislation in its final draft will address some of the problems surrounding the application of the permanent voters list. There is a huge frustration, as one can appreciate, whether it be a member of the voting public from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough or from any constituency in the country, when individuals make that important statement of going to cast their ballot and arrive at a polling station only to find that for one reason or another their names are not listed.

I hope that when the bill goes to committee we will have an opportunity to delve into it in greater detail. That is not to say that this is not the proper forum to discuss some of the problems and some of the changes that could occur, but I hope that at that time in particular we will have an opportunity to pose questions to the chief electoral officer and his staff regarding some of these issues that arose during the last campaign.

From these problems and this experience, we might get some idea from Mr. Kingsley, the chief electoral officer, of the cost of creating this permanent electoral list, of the attempts that will of course follow to keep it up to date, and of the safeguards that ensure it is accurate, for this in and of itself has to be the fundamental purpose of having a permanent voters list, a list that reflects the eligible voters of the various constituencies around the country. It appears, in its current form at least, to be flawed. This is an opportunity to change that, to improve upon this permanent voters list and the efforts that were made to put this in place in the first place.

The overall amendments to the current legislation as compared to the last parliament's appear to be fairly straightforward in nature. Bill C-9 responds to the Ontario court of appeal case known as Figueroa. This case dealt with a submission on the part of the Communist Party of Canada, an argument that many of the provisions of the Canada Elections Act in its current form benefited larger political parties and therefore, by virtue of the same method, discriminated against the smaller political groupings.

With regard to the identification of candidates and political parties on the ballot, the court held that provisions of the Canada Elections Act limit identification of candidates' party affiliations on the ballot to candidates that were endorsed by organized political parties which supported 50 or more candidates in a general election.

It was found in the ruling by the majority on the court that this would infringe the charter. By virtue of its decision, the court did, as is often the case, give the Parliament of Canada an opportunity to address the issue, the anomaly, and to fix the problem.

The court felt that there was no justification, as it wrote in the ruling, for bringing the 50 candidates limit in relation to this matter or for having that in place. It discriminated against smaller political groups and was thus, in the court's opinion, not justifiable under the charter. It did not meet what has become known as the Oakes test.

This was a common sense judgment in my view, and the way in which it has been handled is the way that it should have been handled, that is, it is now back in the place where legislation is to be drafted and produced. It is back in our hands for us to do just that job.

The court put in place a time period to rewrite the applicable portion of that legislation. It set no particular guidelines in its findings with respect to the 50 candidates rule. It did not say it was too high but it did not set a bottom number either, so the current legislation produces the number of 15, which may be arbitrary. That is again something that will be examined by the committee. It is interesting to note that the number of 15 is that which was recommended by a royal commission on electoral reforms that was established after the 1988 general election.

The bill before us does in fact recommend that political parties can have their names printed under the name of the supported candidate if the nomination of 12 candidates of that party is confirmed by the chief electoral officer at the close of nominations.

At the committee I or a representative of the Progressive Conservative Party will look forward with great interest to listening to the reasons for picking this number and why it is that the government feels it is the particular number that would be defensible and charter proof in any future challenges. That is something we have to bear in mind when we put this final number in place.

I want to make a brief passing reference to the issue of Bill C-273, which was in my view quite meanspirited and a bit inflammatory in its reference to fringe parties in this Chamber. I think it is disrespectful and trivializing to introduce legislation of this sort and is purely political posturing. However, that said, I think the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, with some humility, might consider withdrawing this particular bill because of its inflammatory nature, and I think that good faith on his part might be forthcoming.

I do look forward to dealing with this particular bill when it gets to the committee and looking at the possibility of fine tuning some of the amendments.

Some of the other particular amendments that come out of this legislation deal with the advertising blackout period, which is important because of the vastness of the country, because of the time change that occurs not only on election night but in the periods before the campaign. This is also an important consideration.

There is the adjustment of expense limits for candidates should there be differences in the total number of voters between the preliminary electoral list and the revised list.

These are important rules of engagement to be governed by the legislation.

In any event, the committee will have an opportunity to look at these matters in greater detail. The committee will have an opportunity to hear from the chief electoral officer. In fact, I am sure the government House leader, who has carriage of this bill, will be an able and apt participant in those discussions.

I see that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is present too, and I am very hopeful that the indication that the government is very forthcoming and forthright about electoral reform also applies to parliamentary reform. I want to refer briefly to an occasion where there was an opportunity to bring about some political reform too. That was to have—

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

To begin with, we will be supporting this legislation. We will be doing so because it is consistent with the Figueroa decision handed down in Ontario. It ensures that we conform to the spirit of this decision. I will say, however, that we are not happy to be giving the bill our support, and I will explain why.

First of all, when one looks at the actual bill and reads it, it is clear that it is very brief. It contains only a few clauses. At first blush, it might appear that this is really a relatively minor or superficial bill. It is true that, in terms of content, it is brief. It will not go down in history for its length.

While the bill may seem fairly minor and innocuous, what is troubling to say the least is the government's attitude.

I believe that, by its very nature and by its very content, this bill reflects the arrogant and cynical attitude of this government, which feels that it embodies truth and innate knowledge.

We have before us today a bill which is evidence of all the haste with which the Elections Act reform was carried out during the last parliament. We proceeded precipitously. And why did we? Because the government waited until halfway through its mandate to bring in the amendments it intended to make to the Elections Act. The government was planning, anticipating, a rush election. It wanted to move as quickly as possible to pass new legislation, so that the chief electoral officer would have the time—we are talking six months or so—to implement the provisions of the new legislation before the election was called.

The fact is that, indeed, the provisions of the election legislation rushed through in 1999-2000, if I am not mistaken, took effect at the very beginning of September 2000, so the government was in a position to call a snap election.

Speaking of haste, this bill is an illustration, a proof of the haste with which the government moved during the last parliament in order to get the Elections Act changed, with its bill number 2, Bill C-2.

First, Bill C-9, which is before the House today, contains provisions intended to ensure linguistic concordance, since it appears that the Elections Act, under which the most recent federal elections were held, contained linguistic concordance problems. In other words, some provisions did not say exactly the same thing in English and in French.

Had the government taken the time to properly study Bill C-2 and not rushed it through, perhaps we would have had the time to catch these little language errors and prevent them from having any effect during an election campaign on the interpretation of the law.

Happily—of course the matter is not over yet—it appears that the problems of interpretation in linguistic terms did not cause any catastrophes in the last election.

I will give an example. In the bill before us, clauses 18 and 19 are two provisions intended to bring the French text into line with the original English text with respect to the rules governing the allocation of free broadcasting time and the purchase of air time during the election campaign. The period during which air time is available to the political parties and candidates is defined as the period between the time the election was called and polling day. In French, the text reads “jusqu'à minuit le jour du scrutin”.

On closer examination of the English, we find “At midnight on the day before polling day”. They just forgot to say “À minuit, la veille du jour du scrutin”. That makes a fair difference. It is not a minor error. It is a detail, which could have made all the difference during the latest election campaign, in some ridings, even across Canada.

Here is another example. Clause 4 of Bill C-9 talks of the provisions concerning information to be contained in the register of electors.

It states that it shall contain:

—any other information that is provided under subsections 49(2), 194(7), 195(7), 223(2), 233(2) and 251(3).

It was simply not noticed that, in Bill C-2, the reference was to subsection 195(7) and not, as it was passed in the last parliament, to subsection 195(3). The wrong subsection was amended. The reference is to the wrong subsection. This is another example of haste and sloppy work.

Another example is when the bill refers to generally accepted accounting principles, concepts that the Bloc Quebecois incorporated in Bill C-2, by the way.

As for the generally accepted accounting principles in clause 21, the government simply forgot to include these provisions in subparagraphs 403( b )(i) and (ii). Could this have made a difference? Of course it could have. This is another example of how Bill C-2 was rushed through, without the time being taken to do a proper job.

Why? Simply to satisfy the partisan goals of the government. This is completely and utterly unacceptable.

I was talking about party politics. Is there anything more vital to democracy than an electoral bill? It seems to me that such a bill must be acceptable to most if not all political parties taking part in the process. Everyone must agree with the process if it is to be accepted by civil society in general.

But, as I said earlier, in the reform of the Canada Elections Act during the last parliament, the government's approach was to brazenly put party politics and its political interests ahead of seeking a consensus with opposition parties.

We have seen this in several regards. The government's reform of the Canada Elections Act is essentially cosmetic and superficial. Naturally, it has been amended to be more readable and logical. Of course, some changes were made to comply with previous rulings.

This reminds me of the comment made earlier by the hon. member for Edmonton North, who said that this government is much more reactive than proactive. It is true. We proposed all sorts of ideas during the review of Bill C-2 to amend the Elections Act, so as to make it better for our fellow citizens and so that it would reflect more democratic and modern electoral procedures. But, as I just said, the government decided instead to make only some minor cosmetic changes.

Bill C-2 was not the result of a consensus. It was rammed down our throat by the government. Yet, when he launched the consultation process, the government House leader, the minister responsible for Canada's electoral reform, had said “I want to ensure that we can co-operate with federal political parties—as has traditionally been the case in Canada—so that this bill will reflect a consensus”. Which consensus did this bill reflect? None. The government alone voted in favour of Bill C-2.

I would even go further. The government was so determined to ram this bill through and muzzle the opposition that it went so far as to see that, at third reading, only the government's spokesperson and one representative of the official opposition were allowed to speak to the bill.

Is there anything more despicable than to see the cornerstone of democracy, the elections act of a country, debated at third reading in the House, at the final stage, by only two political parties out of the five represented here in parliament?

The government's behaviour during consideration of Bill C-2 was absolutely outrageous.

The government pushed that bill through so fast that it had to come back to the House and say “Well, there are some minor changes we need to do, typos we need to correct. Would you be kind enough to let us correct these mistakes?”

The government is using the Figueroa ruling, which basically compels us to amend the elections act, to introduce a whole series of tiny minor changes, without of course embarking on an in depth reform of the legislation.

The government is saying “The system has served us well, let it be. We have been re-elected three times under the current election system, with three great majorities, do not change a thing”.

Is this not the party led by the same man who promised, as Leader of the Opposition, that the first thing he would do as Prime Minister would be to include proportional representation into the system?

Well, he was elected and all he had managed to do by the end of his second term was to introduce some slight cosmetic changes to the Canadian election system, because the system has served him well and has worked to his advantage. The government is far from willing to propose any significant amendments to the current election legislation.

Let me briefly go over some of the provisions found in this bill. Among others, the bill amends the Canada Elections Act to give a greater role to the Senate. Previously, if he wanted to carry out a pilot project, for example to test an electronic voting process, the chief electoral officer had to obtain, under Bill C-2, the approval of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, that deals with electoral matters.

Believe it or not, under Bill C-9, the one before us today, not only will the approval of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be required, but also the approval of the Senate committee that normally considers electoral matters. It takes some nerve to give to a committee made up of unelected parliamentarians the power to say to the Cyou chief electoral officer, “No, you cannot carry out a study on a new way for people to exercise their right to vote in an election”, or “Yes, you can go ahead, under this or that condition”.

Is it not ironic to call upon a committee made up of unelected parliamentarians to debate the Canada Elections Act, which concerns each and everyone of us as representatives of our constituents? This is somewhat embarrassing.

The main purpose of Bill C-9 is to enable a political party that has at least 12 candidates to have its name listed on the ballots along with the name of its candidates. Members will remember that the number of candidates required used to be 50. This bill would reduce the number to 12.

Obviously the Figueroa decision does not specify the number of candidates that would be acceptable in constitutional terms.

So the government proposed the number 12. The rational argument, the logic behind this government proposal, is this. It takes 12 MPs in the House for a party to become a recognized political party. Let us use the same figure for recognition of a political party on the ballot, even if the number of 50 candidates on a slate is still valid for the party to be able to take advantage of the tax benefits offered by the Government of Canada. That said, from now on, the number of candidates required before the party name would be given on the ballot would be 12.

Hon. members might well ask “Why 12? Why not two, five, or ten?” The government, of course, says “Yes, but a rational argument is required, and the rational argument is the rule whereby it takes 12 members in the House for a party to become a recognized political party”.

During the briefing session, a most interesting point was raised by a colleague from the Canadian Alliance. He asked “And what if Prince Edward Island wanted to try an experiment like the Bloc Quebecois did?” There are only six ridings on P.E.I., so how could one imagine the Bloc P.E.I. on the ballet? It would not be possible with only six ridings.

I imagine that this will give rise to a lot of debate on the matter, but I find it unfortunate that the government did not want to take advantage of the work done on the previous bill, Bill C-2, or of consideration of this one, Bill C-9, in order to make more substantial amendments to the Elections Act.

On Tuesday, we debated the possibility of striking a special all-party committee to examine the merits of various models of proportional representation and other electoral reforms. The government clearly indicated its lack of interest.

Let us not be surprised afterward when the people of Quebec and of Canada show even less interest in federal politics, having seen the lack of interest the government has in bringing in any reform whatsoever. Let us not be surprised that the voter turnout is constantly dropping, constantly waning, election after election, when we have a government with such a closed mind and such arrogance toward the public.