Bill C-3 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act

Canada Elections Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have a ruling on Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act. There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-3.

Motion No. 1 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been presented in committee and it has not met the notice requirement pursuant to Standing Order 76(2). Consequently, the House will proceed to consider the motion to concur in report stage.

Business of the House

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer the Thursday question.

This afternoon, we will continue the budget debate. Tomorrow, we will begin consideration at the report and subsequent stages of Bill C-3, the Canada Elections Act, followed by a motion for referral of Bill C-25, the whistleblower bill, to a committee before second reading.

Monday and Tuesday we will continue with the budget debate. Wednesday, we will have votes on ways and means motions. We will then resume consideration of any bill that did not get finished on Friday, Bill C-11 in particular, plus of course, if possible, Bill C-9 on drugs. Next Thursday, I hope we will be able to start second reading of the budget bill.

As for the committees, all I can say is that I am pleased the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will be able to make some progress during the week we are not sitting here in the House.

Customs Tariff

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have had a very interesting debate today. When we started this morning, nobody expected it would move along this way, but it has been certainly interesting.

The Conservative Party will support the bill because we support free trade. However, this has given all of us an opportunity to talk in a wider frame about free trade and the sorts of problems that do or do not occur.

Before continuing on Bill C-21, I would like to mention an exchange that took place a little earlier between myself and a member of the NDP. He talked about unfair competition and that if there was unfair competition, we would surely want to have protection in place for the companies that were subjected to this unfair competition.

That hits pretty close to home. Prior to being a member of Parliament, I was in business for myself. I had a company with 10 employees, and at one stage in the 1980's, we were in the facsimile business, selling fax machines. That was about the time when Office Depot and Staples started expanding into British Columbia. They were opening stores in the Vancouver area where I was selling fax machines. Suddenly people could buy fax machines from Staples and Office Depot for a couple of hundred dollars less than the fax machines I sold.

I guess my colleague from the NDP would probably argue that was unfair competition. This big box store was coming in taking away the livelihood of my employees and all the stuff that went along with it. However, I did not look at it that way.

When we say it is unfair, unfair for whom? It was wonderful for consumers. Now they could buy a product at $200 less than they could from me and more people could afford it. As a result, Office Depot and Staples could employ many more people than I could. They could sell the types of products that they could bring into the marketplace, which the small retailers could not.

Instead of crying, weeping, going to government and demanding and asking for help to protect my business, I sat down and took a look at what Staples and Office Depot could not do that I could as a small business entrepreneur. I discovered that my technicians were trained to service the fax machines, and they could service the machines that were sold by Staples and Office Depot. What is more, the market became bigger because Office Depot and Staples were selling a lot more fax machines than I ever could, so we had more servicing opportunities than we ever had before.

I also looked around at products. We chose a line of specialty telephone equipment that Staples and Office Depot could not sell because it was too complicated and required too much pre-selling for a customer to understand how it would be beneficial.

There are always ways for an innovative business person to move aside from problems that are created by a free marketplace and to find something else that works. It is called niche marketing and it works really well. That is why Northern Telecom is so successful. It is in a niche market. It started at a time when virtually no one serviced that part of the telecommunication equipment market. It has become the world leader in the supply of telecommunication equipment.

When we talk about bills like this one and the whole environment of free trade, we have to remember that free trade has really and truly helped countries like Canada. All of the other countries of the world that have opened their borders now have higher living standards, better wages and just generally a better environment because of free trade.

I left this example until after I had given my own personal example. One of the Bloc members earlier talked about a manufacturer of paper bags in his riding who was distressed because those bags could now be made more cheaply in China. I assume this manufacturer has complained to his member of Parliament about this terrible state of affairs and has asked what the government can do to protect his paper bag manufacturing plant.

I am making some assumptions, but I think they are a reasonable assumption. The correct approach is to be honest with that manufacturer and tell him that the government policy is free trade and that he will have to work out a way to make his business work in this environment, not with government subsidies, not with protection from tariffs. Rather he should look at what he is manufacturing.

If somebody else is knocking him out of the marketplace, he should find something else to make. Perhaps he can make a specialty plastic bag, one of those wine carriers we see being sold a lot now. They are very much in vogue. There is string attached, and it is a nice type of plastic bag or paper bag in which to carry our wine when we go out to visit someone for dinner. There could be gift bags. There could be a whole range of different options for that manufacturer to get back into the marketplace in an niche market that cannot be touched by China because it is too small for that mass market and yet very profitable. There are other examples like this, too.

I am originally from New Zealand. As hon. members would know, in the mid-nineties New Zealand went bankrupt. What happened? It had to remove almost all the subsidies and grants that were given to farmers in New Zealand. My goodness, there was a lot of wailing, weeping and moaning about what would happen, and certainly a number of farmers went bankrupt. However, within 10 years there were three times as many farmers in New Zealand as there were prior to the removal of subsidies because farming had suddenly become profitable. Farmers were able to use their initiative to find niche markets.

At one stage some farmers in New Zealand were providing most of the mozzarella for Pizza Hut in the United States. They discovered they could make a quality mozzarella at the right price to fill that niche market. Farmers had been making orange cheddar previously, which everybody made, and governments filled warehouses full of cheddar that nobody needed. It was wonderful. The New Zealand farmers were forced into the position of getting off that government reliance and on to the idea of niche markets.

I do not know if hon. members have ever been there, but they should take a trip to New Zealand, go to a supermarket and take a look at the dairy department. They will be astounded at the variety and choice in that supermarket. There are so many cottage industries in the dairy industry making specialty cheeses for the yuppie market, I suppose we could call it. In addition, there are flavoured whipping creams in New Zealand. We can get kahlua whipping cream and grand marnier whipping cream. We cannot even get that in Canada because it is still illegal to sell alcohol added to those products. It is not that simple, but the removal of subsidies and grants has spawned an industry and initiative that was never there before.

I will give a home grown example. In British Columbia in the early 1980s the wine industry was heavily subsidized. Anyone who grew grapes would be guaranteed to get a huge government subsidy to stay in business. Everybody knew the wine was absolutely awful. Everybody knew it was dreadful stuff. The government of Bill Bennett at the time removed the subsidies.

Other colleagues from British Columbia will remember the screaming, yelling, wailing and moaning. Everyone was going out of business. It would be just awful. What has happened? It encouraged the industry to take a long, hard look at itself, to get rid of the junk grapes that it was growing, to start growing quality grapes and to get good winemakers from around the world. Winemakers came from France, New Zealand, Italy and Germany to help the industry develop, and now look at it today. British Columbia produces world-class wine.

Governments do not do anybody any favours by providing grants and subsidies to business. It stifles initiative and it stifles a choice in the community for consumers. It keeps prices high. If they wanted, everybody in the House could have a BlackBerry and most people could have a computer at home because of free markets that allow those products to be manufactured at a low enough price for the average person to buy in a store in Canada.

I can remember when a computer could only be purchased from a specialty store and cost $12,000. When my business purchased its first computer in 1979, it cost more than $12,000. Very few people even sold a computer. It had 12 inch floppy discs that we put into it. Only 80K of information was held on one of these great big discs, and it cost $12,000.

I had a Future Shop flyer in front of me earlier today. We can buy a desktop computer now, with a monitor and with 2.8 gigabytes of storage, for $499. What produces that sort of situation is free and open markets.

That is why at the end of the day we will be supporting the bill, because we truly believe in open markets and the reduction of tariffs. In fact, the only thing I am unhappy about with the bill is that it does not remove the tariffs completely. It maintains in place preferential treatment for some countries and less preferential treatment for others. At least it has been a step along the way, because when I immigrated to Canada in 1979 it was very much like New Zealand had been earlier with lots of protective tariffs in place and very high prices for a lot of products. It certainly is a much better environment today.

Before I finish, I need to mention something that was mentioned earlier by some of my colleagues and that is the unholy rush in which the bill is being pushed through the House. The government must have seen this situation coming up at least a year or two ago. There was a sunset clause on these tariffs. Everyone knew they were to expire very soon. Why did the government leave it until so close to the expiry date? The expiry date was to be June 30 this year. No one can tell me that no one in government recognized a year ago that this was going to happen.

Why did the government leave the bill until two or three weeks before an election call to bring it to the House? Now we are rushing the bill through without proper consideration of alternatives in order to make sure that it can stay in place when we go to an election and the House will not be here to make sure that it is done prior to June. This is typical of what has been happening in the House over the last few weeks.

I have been working on Bill C-3 which deals with the definition of political parties. That bill was introduced in the House when we came back after prorogation. The minister persuaded us that he wanted it to go to committee before second reading so that we could study the bill and make wise amendments to it and so on.

The minister indicated that he was truly interested in hearing input, that we were in a new era, that we would be getting rid of the deficit of democracy around this place. What happened when we went to committee on Bill C-3, the very first question I asked the minister was whether he or his department had contacted anybody affected by the bill and his answer, incredibly, was no.

Here we were with a bill already before committee prior to second reading. It had only been introduced and it went straight to committee and the minister had not even told the people affected by the bill that it was in process. Why? He wanted it through quickly because if it is not in place by June, it is a similar sort of situation. We have the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that the Elections Act will fall apart if we do not have an amendment in place by June, so the minister is panicking to get this bill in place and through the Senate.

In fact, the bill was supposed to come back today. The minister tried to get unanimous consent in the House to waive the customary three days' notice to bring it back and to put it on the Order Paper today. He could not get that consent, but there is this rush to get the bill back into the House because the government knows it is running out of time. It wants to get it through before the election call. Instead of having proper consideration of the bill, informing the people who will be affected by it, getting some news releases out and making the public aware of the bill, he is trying to get it through as quickly as possible with the fewest people possible noticing as well.

In committee I asked the minister if he had notified anyone. His response was no. I asked if we were getting any witnesses. His response was no. It ended up that the opposition, the Conservative Party, had to filibuster in order to get some witnesses, to even be able to tell the people affected by the bill that it was happening.

We filibustered in the committee and about a week later we managed to get the Chief Electoral Officer in as a witness. Also, at my request, the head of the Communist Party of Canada was able to come from Toronto. However, the government would not allow anyone else from the small parties, such as the Green Party, who would be affected by the bill.

The two witnesses gave their testimony. The Chief Electoral Officer raised some terrible problems with the bill and suggested some very wise amendments. Right after the witnesses appeared, the minister wanted us to go ahead and do the clause by clause study of the bill. We had to threaten filibustering again in order to even consider the evidence given by the witnesses.

Some very wise amendments were suggested by the Chief Electoral Officer. We met again a few days later in committee with the minister having given an indication he was open to discussion about the amendments but in the end he would not approve any of them.

What a futile exercise it turned out to be in the same sort of circumstance as this bill. It is rushing through legislation without proper consideration, without hearing witnesses and without giving proper amendments so a faulty piece of legislation will be back in the House, I am sure, in the next few days. It is going to be rammed through the House so that we can go to an election and it is crammed with problems.

The Chief Electoral Officer said that Bill C-3 is forcing him into a position where he will have to make judgments about the purposes of political parties. In order to register them he would have to determine whether the Liberal Party of Canada, for example, actually has a purpose.

Mr. Speaker, how would you like to be in that position? That single person who is supposed to be non-partisan, completely independent of any of the political parties will be put in a position of having to determine and then sign off on paperwork that he is satisfied that the political party he is registering has a political purpose. That is the type of legislation we are getting because of this unholy rush to get things through before an election.

I realize that the bill before us is not quite as bad. It deals with a situation that has been well discussed in the past. It deals with free trade. It certainly has given us an opportunity, as I mentioned, to talk a fair bit about free trade today and to get some of our concerns on the table. We have heard a variety of opinions expressed today.

There are some who would like to see us move back to more protectionism. The members of the Bloc, whom I like to call the NDP of Quebec, would like to side with the NDP and see more protectionism. They think that would be helpful but it is not. All of the evidence that a person can gather shows that protectionism destroys jobs. Protectionism reduces consumer selection and choice. Protectionism increases prices for the consumer and it does not help people's living conditions or working standards.

The best way to achieve those goals is to have the type of environment that Bill C-21 produces, an environment of lower tariffs, freer trade and more opportunity.

Committees of the House

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be tabling two reports. First, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate membership of certain committees of the House.

With leave of the House, I intend to move concurrence in the ninth report later this day.

Second, I have the honour to present the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of reference of Wednesday, February 18, regarding Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.

The committee has considered Bill C-3 and has agreed to report it with amendments.

Democratic Reform

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the House sent Bill C-3 to committee before second reading because the Minister responsible for Democratic Reform led us to believe he wanted meaningful input on the legislation.

However, during my questioning of the minister at committee yesterday, he admitted that he had never bothered to contact any of the parties affected by the bill. Not only that, the minister also told us that nobody affected by the bill even knew that it had been introduced.

As if that was not bad enough, the minister used his Liberal members on the committee to block the appearance of any witnesses. Not even the Chief Electoral Officer, who must administer the bill, is allowed to attend.

We foolishly believed that the democratic reforms promised by the minister meant that things would be more democratic around this place. However, it is worse, much worse than it was under the previous minister. The new minister's reforms simply mean that now there is no democracy at all.

Supply

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Winnipeg Centre for bringing this opposition day motion forward to the House of Commons. It is a good discussion to have.

What we are talking about is ethical or social investing as it relates to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The motion basically says that the board should be guided by ethical investment policies which would ensure that our pension investments are socially responsible.

We need to go back some years. If we look at the mid-1990s there was a lot of concern that the Canada pension plan was not viable, not actuarially sound, and our government undertook a whole series of consultations. As a result of that, a program was put in place to put the Canada pension plan on a much sounder footing. That included: changing the contribution rates; adjusting, to some extent, the benefits; and allowing the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to invest, not only in fixed income securities but also to invest in equity investments.

What has been the result of all that? If we look at the actuarial report of December 2000, the actuary concluded that the legislative contribution rates, which were 9.4% in 2002 and 9.9% in 2003 and thereafter, were sufficient to pay for future expenditures and to accumulate assets of $142 billion by 2010. In 2050 the assets are projected to be $1.578 trillion, or 5.9 times the annual expenditures.

The actuary went on to say that under the current schedule of contribution rates, the funding level is expected to increase significantly over the next 20 years with a ratio of assets to the following years' expenditures growing from 2.4% in 2002 to 5.3% in 2020.

When Canadians approach me, and perhaps other members of the chamber, and ask if the Canada pension plan will be there for them and their children, because of the actions of our government in 1997, the actuary is saying yes, the Canada pension plan will be there for them. That is after taking into account the demographics where a much more elderly population will be emerging in Canada over the next few decades, but our Canada pension plan will be on a sound footing. To those who have worried about that, I think this gives a lot of relief.

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is a board that manages, on behalf of contributors, the portfolio of assets under its administration. It is also comprised of representation from the provincial finance ministers, so it is a joint board that effectively is in the fiduciary capacity of managing these investments.

In the last session, Bill C-3, which was passed by the House, will allow the fixed income securities to be transferred from the federal government and put under the control of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

What have the results been of allowing the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to get into managing both equities and fixed income securities? We do know that the equity markets went into the doldrums a few years ago and that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board's portfolio was hit by the same sort of bad news on the stock markets. However if we look at the nine months ending December 31, 2003, we see that assets available to the Canada pension plan earned $8 billion, producing a rate of return of 13.9%. That is all CPP assets, including the $35 billion in fixed income securities currently administered by the government and subject to Bill C-3, which will transfer those securities under the control of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

During that same time period, the portfolio managed by the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board earned a return of 26%. If we look at the benchmarks against which the plan compares its performance against some of the standards in the industry, in 2003 we see that Canadian equities earned 17.3% and the benchmark was 17.5%. It was slightly lower there. In terms of non-Canadian equities, the benchmark was 28% and the actual was 27.6%. In real estate the benchmark was 9.2% and the investment fund actually had a rate of return of 50.7%. Overall, against the benchmarks, the performance exceeded the benchmarks of 20.3% return and it achieved a return of 21.1%.

Why is this relevant? Why is this important? This is important because this board has under its administration some $55 billion that is there earning income and providing benefits to Canadians, now and into the future. It is important the pension fund be sound and that it achieve a good return.

If the CPP is not there for Canadian citizens who retire in the future, they will be looking to the government for other types of support. This is a pension plan funded by employees and employers, so it is important that these trustee funds are managed in an optimal way.

I understand the point of the motion and I know the member for Winnipeg Centre has done some excellent work on this but I do have some difficulty with it.

First, we need to understand that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is mindful of ethical investing. It is guided by some of those principles and, from its experience, it knows that those companies that are committed to good labour relations, to a good, strong performance in human rights and to sustainable management in terms of the environment, will be the best investments to make in any case.

The problem I have with the specifics of the motion is when it states:

...investments are socially responsible and do not support companies or enterprises that manufacture or trade in military arms and weapons, have records of poor labour practices, contribute to environmental degradation, or whose conduct, practices or activities are similarly contrary to Canadian values.

Let us just look at the first part of that. That part of the motion says that any company that manufactures military equipment would not be eligible. I question that in the sense that we do know in this world, unfortunately, there is conflict. We do know that there are weapons produced. We do know that companies manufacture weapons. Is it not somewhat naive to say that an investment plan should not invest in companies that manufacture this type of equipment? However abhorrent we find war and conflict to be, this is the reality.

The motion goes on to state that companies with records of poor labour practices should also be excluded. I ask hon. members: Who will decide whether the labour practices are good or bad?

While it would be fair to say that some companies might have a reputation for having bad labour practices, if we could actually measure that, it is very much a judgmental thing. We have certain companies in certain sectors which have very strong unions and some very militant unions, and some companies have very militant management. We have sectors where the margins and profitability are very low so that management takes a very tough stance. We have unions with very strong membership and leadership that produce some very difficult demands in terms of allowing for the enterprise to be economic. Who decides that the company has a history of bad labour practices?

Who decides, when the motion talks about those companies contributing to environmental degradation, that a company has crossed a certain Rubicon, that they are not environmentally responsible?

Perhaps if we looked at every company in Canada or around the world, every company would be guilty at some point in time of having some slip-ups in the area of environmental management. Does that mean that they are contributing to environmental degradation? I suppose by strict definition it would.

Finally, the motion states that those companies should be excluded “whose conduct, practices or activities are...contrary to Canadian values”. Again, who decides that? I think it is very judgmental.

As I said, the board itself is guided by this type of thinking. For example, if a company is a clear violator of human rights and clearly has unfair employee practices, then in the obvious cases I think the board would be guided by that. When we get into this grey area where it would be open to debate and subjectivity, this is where I think the problems with this motion emerge.

There has been discussion about Talisman Energy Inc. and its work in Africa. Presumably Talisman would not be an ethical investment. Perhaps we in the House could all agree on that; I do not know. With the change of time, though, I would point out that what is good today might not have been good yesterday or vice versa. At one point in time, Nelson Mandela of South Africa was considered a terrorist. Now he is considered a hero.

Too, we have the question about tobacco. Should the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board invest in companies that produce tobacco? Again, we have this hypocritical notion, I might say, and I think we are all guilty of it: we tax tobacco very heavily, which we should do, but then we also allow tobacco to be produced, which gives Canadian citizens the right to choose freely. Could we actually say, then, that companies which produce tobacco---and we are saying in Canada that it is not a prohibited substance, so companies can produce it--would be unethical companies to invest in? It seems somewhat hypocritical to me. If we are going to say it is unethical and contrary to public values in Canada, then maybe we should outlaw tobacco, which I am not necessarily espousing here in the House.

These are the kinds of questions we have. Would we allow, then, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to invest in companies that produce liquor? We know that alcohol produces a problem if used to excess.

What about those companies that manufacture birth control products or contraceptive products?

What about those companies that actually cut down trees? Maybe that would be unethical according to some.

Who decides these things?

What about the mining companies? They mine ore and provide jobs and are companies that act in a very responsible way.

While I understand the intent of the motion from the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre and the NDP, I think the motion is flawed.

I recall that some years ago when I worked in the forest sector we were trying to get the forest industry and the forest unions to invest in silviculture. The government then was facing deficits and there was not enough money to replant, so we embarked on an initiative to work with the companies in the industry and with the labour unions.

When we went to the labour unions, we said, “If everyone puts a little water into this vessel we can replant trees, with the industry putting in its share, the government putting in its share and the unions putting in their share”. What we ran up against was the fact that the unions rightly said, “We cannot accept a rate of return that would be less than an optimal rate of return. We owe it to the people. We are entrusted with these funds to earn the optimal return”.

I think that on behalf of Canadians this board is entrusted to earn an optimal return so that we can safeguard our future and our children's future and so that we can have a pension scheme and a retirement income scheme that Canadians can call upon when they retire.

While I believe the motion is well intentioned, I think it would be contrary to the best interests of Canadians who are contributing to the Canada pension plan. By taking this action, we would end up with returns that are less than optimal. It seems to me that all of us in the House should be fighting for those principles and those policies which will ensure that all Canadians have a decent retirement income scheme when that day comes for them. On that basis, I will be voting against the motion.

Canada Elections Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill.

It might be well to remind those watching why there is a bill before us to amend the Elections Act. It is because a challenge was made before the Supreme Court to have political parties recognized even if they have fewer than 50 candidates.

To ensure a healthy and quality democracy that allows each person to express himself or herself appropriately, the court decided to give us, the legislators, one year to correct the situation. Since we are in the second part of an electoral term, these new provisions must be implemented as soon as possible. I hope that the bill will become law and enter into force, if possible, in time for the next election, or, if that is not technically possible, then compliance with the spirit might be possible in the next election.

It was a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court judges, who declared that it is unconstitutional to oblige political parties to nominate a minimum of 50 candidates in an election in order to be recognized as a registered party. In fact, what is the minimum number of candidates? That is the question the Supreme Court asked. The bill before us contemplates the minimum, providing that if there is one candidate, a party can be recognized. With that, it is believed that the new law will satisfy the requirements expressed by the Supreme Court.

Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be understood with reference to the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process, rather than the election of a particular form of government. This definition takes into account the reasons for which individual participation in the electoral process is important, particularly respect for diverse opinions and the capacity of individuals to enhance democracy.

The bill seeks in some way to reinstate the conditions in place in the beginnings of democracy. When countries established democratic regimes, when the first experiments were taking place, people with differing opinions formed parties and this came to be the legislative machinery we have today. This is what underlies the ability of citizens to express their opinions and to select the person they want to represent them.

The Supreme Court has finally set us straight, so that any individual wishing to express an opinion may do so, through the political party of his or her choice, and not just through those political parties which enjoy sufficient visibility to field 50 candidates. The 50 candidate limit posed a problem to the Supreme Court, and the intent of this bill is to remedy the present situation.

The Court pointed out that political parties fielding fewer than 50 candidates also play a worthwhile role in the electoral process. It argued that a political party's ability to make a valuable contribution to the electoral process did not depend on its ability to constitute for the electorate a real alternative to the outgoing government. If anyone understands that, it is the members of the Bloc Quebecois.

Hon. members are aware of the contributions the Bloc Quebecois has made to this Parliament in the time we have been here. Over the past two years, people will have noted that we have raised the sponsorship issue more than 441 times. With each time, we have taken one more step toward the day we hope to finally get to get this matter completely out in the open. A political party like the Bloc Quebecois has no intention of assuming power in Canada. Our goal is to make Quebec a country. We have, however, made a worthwhile contribution in this Parliament.

Possibly other parties fielding fewer than 50 candidates could, during election campaign debates, at least, present interesting opinions, possibly those of the regions. Some parts of Canada might want to be represented by a party that fielded fewer than 50 candidates.

Let us think, for instance, of the Inuit population, or the inhabitants of the Canadian far north. They may not find themselves reflected in the federal political parties currently available. They might consider forming a political party. They do not, of course, have the interest or the capacity to round up more than 50 candidates, but they would still deserve to be represented in this House, and that is what the measure we are looking at now should make it possible for them to do.

The court stated further:

—[the right to vote] requires each citizen to have information to assess party platforms and the legislation undermines the right to information protected by s. 3.

It can therefore not be protected under section 1 of the Charter.

In other words, the court determined that, without the benefits available under the Elections Act, a party would find it difficult to propagate its political ideology. The idea is therefore to provide a level playing field where all can debate and have access to the financial tools they need to put their arguments across.

That is where the 50 candidate requirement infringes rights guaranteed under section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by limiting the ability of members and supporters of parties disadvantaged by this requirement to express ideas and opinions in the context of public debates occasioned by the electoral process.

Basically, the court is saying that there must be healthy and fair competition, and anyone who wishes to run under whatever banner they want must be able to do so. It will be up to the people to decide who they want and do not want.

The court has given us one year to replace these provisions with requirements more consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is what the bill before us today is all about.

It is somewhat surprising for various bills relating to the Canada Elections Act to be rammed through. For example, the electoral map should come into force one year after it becomes official. Normally, this legislation should come into effect in August 2004, but this bill would allow the current Prime Minister to call an election, according to his agenda, as early as April 2004.

There is utter disregard for the principle that this legislation should not be subject to partisan applications. The government decided to move up the date the electoral map takes effect, and we are still waiting for this decision to come back from that other place.

However, the federal government's action runs somewhat counter to the spirit of the court's ruling with regard to the quality of democracy. In fact, if someone contested this part of the legislation, I am not certain that the court would not reach the same conclusions.

This bill contains a number of amendments. As I mentioned earlier, the obligation to endorse 50 candidates has been replaced by the obligation to support at least one candidate. A party must have at least 250 members who have provided a signed declaration that they are party members. In my opinion, an individual could be identified as a party in one riding and have at least 250 members in that riding alone.

There must be three party officers in addition to the party leader. One of the primary purposes of a registered party must be to participate in public affairs. Consequently, parties must stick strictly to politics.

Those parties that do not support a single candidate during a general election will be automatically de-registered. This will eliminate charlatans or situations where people create fake parties, but do not endorse any candidates, which would be absurd.

The bill also provides for the de-registration of those parties that do not comply with the new requirements and for the remittance of moneys illegally collected. Today, we realize how important such a provision can be. It applies to small parties, but it also applies to major parties. One only has to look at the current situation with the Liberal Party of Canada.

The bill also creates offences relating to the provision of false or misleading information, and a person's acting as leader of a party when the person knows that the party does not comply with the requirements set in the definition of a political party.

So, unlike the example that I gave earlier, where partisanship was a factor in the date of implementation of the electoral map, this bill will improve the Canada Elections Act. We support the principle that underlies Bill C-3, because it should benefit small political parties.

I will conclude by saying that we will have to pay particular attention to the inclusion of the definition of a “political party” in the Canada Elections Act. According to this definition a political party means an organization one of whose fundamental purposes is to participate in public affairs. We will have to know what the expression “to participate in public affairs” means in concrete terms.

So, I think that we have before us a bill which will comply with the Supreme Court ruling, and with the charters and will further promote the democratic process in Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of promoting a significant democratic debate. While it laments the fact that it does not have enough candidates to run the country, it is still making a significant contribution to the democratic process. This is a good opportunity to also give that chance to other groups that may wish to become political parties without necessarily having 50 candidates.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-3, to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.

Our party whip, the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans spoke eloquently, as did my colleague from Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis who was very informative about the scope of these legislative amendments—and the Prime Minister will like this—to compensate for the lack of democracy in this country.

People talk about democratic imbalance. In my opinion, this bill seeks to amend—and I see that the President of the Treasury Board fully agrees with me—this democratic deficit, although I said imbalance.

Unfortunately, it is different for certain groups with very specific ideas on a particular subject. We need only think of the Green Party which, in those ridings where it is active, promotes ideas that perhaps some find a bit utopian.

However, these ideas need a framework and can be presented in a democratic framework so as to contribute to democratic debate. An idea can seem far-fetched during a particular period in our political or historic evolution, but then lead to bills, philosophies and very interesting policy directions.

Consequently, I believe that it is important to make it easier for political parties to exist so they can present their ideas to the public, thereby improving the democratic process and participation in the democratic process.

In election after election, voter turnout—and directly, the interest level—drops. Such modest measures may encourage the interest of more marginal groups that have important and interesting ideas to bring to the public debate during an election campaign.

Perhaps we will have groups of individuals who will, in different provinces, join forces to address the issue of government spending. The Green Party focused on the environment, but perhaps there will be a party focusing on government spending. I am thinking, in particular, of the $2 billion wasted on the firearms registry.

Then there is the $100 million wasted on two planes. And the talk of another $1 billion wasted at Human Resources Development. The minister has dissociated himself from that department in order to sidestep any questions. There is the $250 million sponsorship scandal. Maybe we will have groups created specifically to address this aspect.

The democratic deficit is directly linked to confidence in our elected representatives. Unfortunately—and this is a message for our Liberal colleagues—their reputations are being blackened by the sponsorship scandal, but so is the reputation of politicians as a group.

What are we hearing in all the various public forums? “Well, there you go. We all know that's what politicians are like”. Yet the scandal is on only one side of this House, the Liberal side, but it has sullied the political reputations of the members of the Bloc Quebecois, the Conservatives and the NDP. What is more, it is spreading to include the reputations of politicians in the provincial legislatures or the Quebec National Assembly.

The democratic deficit is directly connected to trust, which the government has shunted aside far too long ago, in order to look out for its friends. It has managed to pull off quite the little money laundering scam.

One wonders what would have happened if all these efforts had been put towards measures to help the disadvantaged. Not all public servants were involved; on that I agree with the Auditor General. It was a small group. What would have happened if the efforts of the political staff, the ministers, the deputy ministers, all the people involved, had been put towards helping seasonal workers find jobs, instead of camouflaging financial transactions in order to funnel money into riding trust accounts or the Liberal Party's coffers?

These efforts and funds ought to have been put toward helping the homeless find affordable and slightly more accessible housing. All the effort that has gone into hiding money from the taxpayers and the Auditor General should have gone into helping the disadvantaged deprived of the guaranteed income supplement.

I think that efforts have been made, but that they were misdirected and took the form of wrongdoing. Had they been channeled toward more noble goals, we would have a more equitable society today. Fewer political parties could be established under Bill C-3. People would have greater confidence in the political system, which means that participation in the electoral or political process would be encouraged and Bill C-3, which is important in our community and our political reality, would probably become less useful or necessary, so to speak.

I welcome the opportunity provided by Bill C-3 to amend the Elections Act to comment briefly on the matter. Another amendment to the legislation concerns the electoral boundaries readjustment. At present, the riding of Repentigny is made up of five municipalities, three of which—Lachenaie, Mascouche and La Plaine—will be attached to a different riding under the new legislation that is likely to take effect on April 1.

I would like to take the opportunity that comes with discussing a bill to amend the Elections Act, to tell mayors, city councillors, journalists, stakeholders and people of influence in these municipalities, before the electoral boundaries are redefined, what a great pleasure and privilege it has been to represent them for more than 10 years, from 1993 to the present. It has been a great privilege for me to get to know them and to work with them on developing lasting projects that will benefit the public. It was a great privilege to work with people who are dynamic, very much in the know, and involved in their community.

I would like to take the opportunity that comes with this bill to amend the Elections Act, to say hello to these people. My heart will always be with them. My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm, who will replace me—we are very optimistic about the election—will represent them very well.

To come back to Bill C-3, as my colleague from Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis said, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with this bill for improving democracy. We also agree with checking whether the proposed amendments are consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The requirement to have at least one candidate in an election seems quite obvious to me. If a political party is created, there has to be a candidate. This is at least logical, if not consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, to be present in an election campaign, a party must have at least one candidate.

There also have to be 250 members who have signed a statement declaring their membership in the party. I believe that is the minimum requirement to have representation. It is not a question of two or three friends talking one day and deciding they will form a party. There needs to be a basic structure.

There need to be three officers of the party, three officials who will be in charge of issuing tax receipts or handling financial aspects to allow the political party to grow and convey its ideas. It is for that reason we must ensure that the bill is carefully worded and that democracy is even more vibrant in this country.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on the bill before the House. In fact, this concerns the referral to committee of Bill C-3, to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.

Obviously, we agree with the underlying principle of the bill, which is to amend the Canada Elections Act to recognize small political parties. We must make a distinction here between a registered political party and a party recognized in the House, as my colleague from Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans mentioned earlier. Previously under the Canada Elections Act, as the Supreme Court ruling stated, a party had to endorse a minimum of 50 candidates during a general election in order to be a registered political party.

This was extremely difficult for small political parties. For example, a new political party had to endorse 50 candidates, have at least 50 ridings with a candidate, who, in my opinion, had few means to make their ideas heard. This presented various difficulties in many ridings.

We agree with the amendments to the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act recommended by the Supreme Court. Naturally, we agree with the principle underlying this bill. Various things will have to be clarified to ensure that a political party is defined. This will require careful attention. What does political party mean? What does it mean in practical terms?

A clear and precise definition is required. That is why this bill must be considered in committee and amended if need be. We need and must agree on a real definition, in order to prevent organizations—I will not mention any names—without any interest in public affairs from being recognized as political parties and benefiting from tax credits normally given to political parties.

This also gives us an opportunity to talk about what democracy is. In the Bloc Quebecois, we had adopted the tradition promoted by the Parti quebecois during the 1970s concerning electoral legislation. We set ourselves the objective of getting the most people possible involved. It was our true and clear intention to recruit many members in order to enable the population as a whole to express itself at all levels of the party, from the local to the national levels in Quebec.

Over the years, I believe the Bloc Quebecois has achieved that objective. First of all, the Bloc banked on the public funding of a political party. As well, it has defended in the House, pretty much consistently, the changes required to the Elections Act, so that, among other things, corporate contributions to political parties would now be banned.

Finally, this past year, after a great many years of major debates, the Bloc Quebecois succeeded in having federal politics cleaned up, as Mr. Lévesque had done in Quebec. This is very important, because this kind of approach made it possible to improve Quebec politics and will, I hope, have the same effect on federal politics.

With all that is going on, and has gone on, we are still far from the objective of this new law. I hope we will be able to solve this problem at the federal political level. This past week, with all of its focus on sponsorships, we were hearing that this was how politics works in Quebec. A statement like that is totally false.

We know very well that politics in Quebec have been cleaned up since the 1970s, and such things could never have happened under our present electoral legislation. Our elections act was brought in by the Parti quebecois and has been upheld by subsequent governments. It has the approval of the National Assembly and of the people of Quebec.

When we hear such statements, we know they are totally unacceptable. A person would really have to be lacking in judgment and knowledge to say such things.

That also gives us the opportunity to say that in order for our democracy to exist and flourish, it is necessary that the public be able to participate. Of course, if more opportunities are opened up for the creation of political parties that will defend different opinions and different ideals, that can only be healthy for democracy, because it will encourage more citizens to participate in democratic life.

Considering the recent history of general elections, we see that there has been a gradual disaffection of the citizens with politics, particularly federal politics, if we look at the percentages of people who bother to get out and vote.

At present, there is a danger in letting things slide, making it easy for citizens not to be involved in or committed to a political party or even politics in general. If we want democracy to continue to exist and flourish and have the effects we all hope it will have, it is essential that the majority of people go to the bother of voting and participating in our democracy. In a democracy, the usual method of participating and sharing ideas involves political parties.

We are in favour of an amendment to the bill. In any event, the Supreme Court gives the government no choice. The Elections Act has to be amended and so does the Income Tax Act so that political parties wanting to register are able to sell memberships and collect contributions. All this will be done within the new framework established following much debate and the Bloc Quebecois' incessant demands that federal government politics be cleaned up.

The Supreme Court gave the government one year to achieve this objective. At the end of that year, the need to present 50 candidates will be eliminated. From the Supreme Court ruling to the end of the one-year deadline, the bill has to be adopted and the necessary changes made. It is absolutely imperative that through this bill, we give small political parties every opportunity to form and express their points of view and ideas.

Naturally, several changes have been proposed by the government. We probably will not agree with all the changes presented and I think that is normal, but they have to be closely examined in committee.

For instance, we are told that for a party to be formed, it needs at least 250 members who have signed a statement declaring their membership in the party. That is the minimum. To create and register a party, to have it prosper and to have candidates in each riding, a membership of 250 is not much. We should perhaps reconsider this requirement to ensure that the political party is serious about registering. Our democracy needs to benefit from this. Contrary to what might happen, democracy must not be ridiculed, but applied properly. The public must be able to take part in it.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on this bill, which is in response to the Supreme Court decision in the Figueroa case.

As we know, Mr. Figueroa is the leader of the Communist Party of Canada and he testified before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the previous session of this Parliament, during the November 7 recess. Clearly, this bill needed to be reinstated as Bill C-3.

We will recall that, in that case, the Canada Elections Act was challenged by Mr. Figueroa. In 1993, the Communist Party of Canada lost its status as a registered party because it failed to nominate the required number of candidates. To be recognized under the Elections Act and by the Chief Electoral Officer, the parties must nominate at least 50 candidates. That is how it used to be. Mr. Figueroa challenged this decision all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in his favour, stating that the 50 candidate requirement for political party registration was unconstitutional.

This meant that a party could be recognized regardless of the number of candidates nominated, even just a single one. This means that a party could nominate a single candidate, and the Chief Electoral Officer would have no choice but to register the party and recognize it as a registered party.

The legal argument used by Mr. Figueroa, which the Supreme Court accepted, was that this 50 candidate threshold was in violation of section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to vote, among other things. The court ruled that the 50 candidate requirement was putting a restriction on the right to vote and, to a certain extent, on the development of smaller parties.

Members know that, in law, discriminatory rules may be imposed, but one of the tests the Supreme Court uses is to determine whether this element of discrimination is acceptable in a free and democratic society. This test is applied in many areas.

Without giving a lot of examples, I will mention the standards set for the height of an airline pilot. This issue has been legally tested. For safety reasons, someone too small or too big for the cockpit layout could not do the work of a pilot. For instance, someone who was 7 feet, 4 inches tall—my children still get after me for talking in feet and inches—was rejected because a cockpit is designed with a certain minimum and maximum in mind. Clearly, a person who is too far from the controls cannot operate the aircraft.

The company was, in effect, discriminating, but the issue was to determine whether that discrimination was justified or not in a free and democratic society. In the case of the Elections Act, the number of 50 candidates has been judged unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has told us that section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be interpreted rather broadly. Section 3, which guarantees certain rights, particularly the right to vote, is interpreted with reference to the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process, rather than the election of a particular form of government.

This definition takes into account the reasons why individual participation in the electoral process is important, in particular, respect for diversity of opinions and the ability of each person to strengthen the quality of the democracy.

A little while ago, I heard the leader of the government tell the House that it was important to do something about the democratic deficit and I made a comment to the hon. member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis, because we know that this is the government's new hobby horse. Ever since the events of September 11, September 11 has been the excuse for everything. Everything was a pretext to deprive people of certain rights—because of September 11.

This government has found a new hobby horse, namely that now we must fix the democratic deficit. Unfortunately the government does not always walk the way it talks, and the same old Liberal methods we have known for decades often still prevail.

The court also said that the members and supporters of political parties presenting fewer than 50 candidates meaningfully participate in the electoral process. The court held that the ability of a party to make a valuable contribution is not dependent upon its capacity to offer the electorate a genuine government option.

In committee, several experts suggested that perhaps the issue of 50 candidates being deemed unconstitutional should be appealed. We cannot appeal to the Supreme Court, but perhaps we could have another recourse to ensure that a number, such as the number one, is not considered valid.

Many people have told us that we should consider the possibility of recognizing a party that presents at least 12 candidates. I remember asking certain academics, “Why the rule of 12?” The professors of administrative law and constitutional law pointed out that to have official party status in this House, the rule had been set at 12 members. Consequently, the rule should be the same for the number of candidates nominated.

However, I would like to point out that I am completely against this parallel. A distinction needs to be made with the rules inside the House for recognizing a party with respect to parliamentary proceedings and debates. Short of 12, the party is considered independent or a group of independent MPs.

This happened to the Bloc when the party was being formed. I believe the highest number of Bloc representatives in the 1990s was 9 or 10 members. They were considered a group of independent members.

Consequently, the rule of 12 should not be placed in the context of the number required for official party status in the House, in order to be accepted by the chief electoral officer.

In conclusion, I would add that we agree with the principle behind Bill C-3. We feel that the bill creates new measures for promoting the registration of entities as political parties.

We also think that we must pay particular attention to the addition of a definition of political party in the Canada Elections Act suggesting that the primary objective of a political party should be to participate in public affairs. We need to know what exactly is meant by “participate in public affairs”.

We will be resuming work in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on this matter, and may decide to hear from other witnesses. Nonetheless, at this stage, we agree with the principle of the bill.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, first let me congratulate you on taking on the position of Assistant Deputy Chair.

When we first debated this bill in the House, this party, the former Canadian Alliance, expressed surprise that the government, despite all its resources of lawyers and bureaucrats, attempted to go through the process of changing the 50 party rule. Everybody here knew that it would not pass through the Supreme Court of Canada. We all understood that.

We are still baffled as to why a government, with such resources, would try to ram through such legislation. This is a democracy and political parties are the essence of a democracy. One would think that the government would allow a wide open area where people could, through their political parties, express whatever points of view they had. That is the essence of democracy; however, to bring in this 50 party rule is muzzling dissident opinion.

We pointed this out on many occasions. The member from Vancouver who studied this bill at length with other party members and even our former party, the PC Party, came up with the 12 person rule. This is a more reasonable figure. It allows for the concerns that the government House leader just expressed about the fraudulent use of special interest groups trying to take advantage of the bill that his government introduced recently.

A 12 person rule would have been sufficient. I am sure that if this proposal had gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, it would have agreed to the 12 person rule. Now the government has received a big slap on the hands and it is one person rule. The government is now scrambling and running to do damage control.

It is interesting to hear the government House leader say that it will return to the Supreme Court for an extension of this June 2004 rule. I do not understand that. We have debated this in the House. It is going to the committee and there is no need for an extension. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled, so let us go ahead and finish this issue of registration of parties.

He mentioned that there were two pillars to this bill: party registration and anti-abuse measures. Anti-abuse provisions are quite important in any legislation that is put forward. If there were no anti-abuse provisions in a piece of legislation, one would wonder how one would implement those laws.

There are new stringent rules in Bill C-3 coming into play during election campaigns. These came into effect January 1. Nomination and founding meetings of all parties, including ours and the Liberal Party, are all subject to Bill C-3 before the election campaign begins. There are a lot of candidates and people who do not understand the provisions of Bill C-3, including people in my own riding where the nomination meeting took place last week.

I would hope that Elections Canada, which is responsible under this provision, will take these anti-abuse provisions seriously. Without that, there is no point in making bills. There is no point if Elections Canada will not take the complaints that will be coming to it seriously. If it does not, then the whole essence of the bill and what Parliament intended to do falls through the cracks.

I am hoping that Elections Canada will not pass the buck because it does not have the resources to implement the will of Parliament in this case.

Coming back to the anti-abuse provision, I think we have an agreement. I will say that the government is worried to some degree about the abuse. We are all worried about the abuse. We will look at it in committee in order to bring improvements to this, see how we can tighten the anti-abuse provision, and at the same time maintain the essence of democracy, which embodies the free opinions of Canadians.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of opening this debate on referral of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, to a committee before second reading.

As hon. members are aware, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its ruling in the Figueroa case last June, thereby throwing into question some of the key aspects of the Canada Elections Act relating to the registration of political parties.

Moreover, the court suspended application of its decision for one year, that is until June 27, 2004. Bill C-3 represents the government's proposed response to the immediate consequences of the Figueroa ruling.

This bill does not, however, necessarily constitute a permanent solution. The Figueroa ruling is highly complex, and a more thorough study of its impact is required. This is why I have written to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to encourage a broader examination of the Canada Elections Act.

I have asked the committee, moreover, to present all of its recommendations in the form of a draft bill, within a year's time. This is a concrete example of application of our democratic reform.

Bill C-3 is a very slightly modified version of Bill C-51 which was introduced in the last session of Parliament. It is imperative to reintroduce the bill in order to respond to the Supreme Court ruling within the timeframe provided by the court.

I will summarize the findings in Figueroa if I may, and then will set out the main thrust of Bill C-3.

In the Figueroa case, the Supreme Court declared that the 50 candidate rule for party registration was unconstitutional. It concluded that the 50 candidate rule as a condition for access to these benefits was incompatible with the right to vote, which is guaranteed under section 3 of the Charter.

In the court's view, the rule's impact on small parties infringed the right to meaningful participation in the electoral process. The court also ruled that this restriction on section 3 rights could not be justified under section 1 of the charter.

However, the court suspended the effect of its ruling until June 27, 2004. In other words, if no changes are made to the law before that date, the 50 candidate rule will cease to apply. This will leave a major void in the law if nothing else is put in to replace it.

As a result, any group whatsoever could readily register as a political party and take advantage of the tax benefits designed for real political parties.

This is the reason we must take action to ensure that the Canada Elections Act remains in effect after June 27, 2004.

Removing the 50 candidate threshold may result in a great number of groups calling themselves parties seeking registration simply to issue tax credits and access other benefits. Not only is this objectionable as a matter of principle, but it could well have a considerable fiscal impact. We need to address this concern in order to ensure that our fiscal regime is not vulnerable to abuse.

Not legislating to comply with the court's decision could well mean that further recourse to the courts will be necessary.

First, the government would likely have to apply to the Supreme Court to request an extension of the suspension period beyond the June 27, 2004 deadline. There is no guarantee this extension would be granted.

Alternatively, the courts may have to provide guidance to the Chief Electoral Officer on the applicable rules from that date forward.

In any event, the absence of a timely legislative response would create uncertainty as to the rules for party registration.

It is therefore incumbent upon us to do everything possible to protect the integrity of the electoral system.

The bill consists of two key pillars: party registration and accountability provisions, as well as a series of anti-abuse measures.

Based on the Supreme Court decision eliminating the 50-candidate threshold, Bill C-3 will now require parties to endorse at least one candidate. The bill also adds new registration requirements and other measures to ensure that parties seeking to register are legitimate parties.

For the first time, the bill adds a definition of “political party”. For example, one of the main purposes of a party should be to participate in public affairs by endorsing and supporting at least one of its members as a candidate.

Second, each party must have a minimum of 250 members, up from 100, and 250 members shall be required to sign declarations stating that they are members of the party and that they support its registration. Three party officers, in addition to the party leader, shall provide their signed consent to act.

From now on, the parties will be able to register during by-elections. Naturally, if one party does not put forward at least one candidate during a general election, that party will be automatically de-registered.

The second key pillar of the proposed legislation is a series of anti-abuse measures directed toward screening out fraudulent parties and protecting the integrity of the electoral financing regime.

For instance, the bill includes a new false statement offence for knowingly making false statements in relation to the registration of a party. Parties would be forbidden to solicit or receive contributions simply for the purpose of redirecting them to a related third party entity.

In addition to potential de-registration of parties, party officers could be held civilly liable if convicted of offences related to or leading to financial abuses and they could be ordered to make restitution to the public purse.

The bill would increase the powers of the Commissioner of Elections Canada to ensure enforcement and compliance under the act.

I would also like to briefly mention two technical amendments to the bill.

First, we eliminated a reference to January 1, 2004, and changed the date the bill comes into force, given the June 27, 2004, deadline.

Second, we are making a minor amendment to ensure that party officers can continue to act while an application for voluntary de-registration is pending.

As I mentioned earlier, it is incumbent upon us to study the broader impacts of the federal decision. For example, is the ruling likely to affect other benefits in the Canada Elections Act such as party and candidate reimbursements or the allocation of broadcasting time?

Finally, I would like to address the timeframe and the date on which the bill would come into force. Normally, amendments to the Canada Elections Act come into force six months after Royal Assent is given, or earlier if the chief electoral officer publishes the bill along with a notice to the effect that all the necessary preparations have been completed.

However, given the Supreme Court deadline, the bill would come into force on June 27, 2004, rather than after the standard six-month waiting period, unless the chief electoral officer announces it is ready earlier.

Furthermore, there is a six-month transition period for currently registered parties.

There has been a solid tradition of all parties working together on electoral legislation. I know that the work that will be done on this legislation will be no exception.

While we have to move quickly to address the Supreme Court's ruling, the government recognizes that the work of the committee is essential. That is why the bill and the request for the committee to undertake a broader review go hand in hand.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe that if you were to seek it you would find consent that when the question is put later today on the motion to refer Bill C-3 to committee before second reading, that the motion be deemed carried on division.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform]

moved:

That Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Motions for Papers

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Bill C-3. On the Order: Government Orders)

February 18, 2004—the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.