Debates of Nov. 22nd, 1996

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowance Act

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-352, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowance Act (deduction re other income).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to resubmit my private member's bill.

This bill will amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowance Act by clawing back the pensions of former members of Parliament, which are largely funded, of course, by Canadian taxpayers.

The millions upon millions of dollars saved could be directed toward reducing the debt, lowering taxes of long suffering Canadians or prop up funding to health care and secondary education.

I ask all members of the House to support the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Committees Of The House

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 47th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by constituents of Lambton-Middlesex and surrounding areas which is duly certified by the clerk of petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The petitioners request that the House of Commons enact legislation or amend existing legislation to define marriage as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to each other to the exclusion of all others.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from several hundred constituents in Ottawa West which draws to the attention of the House that the National Capital Commission is planning the addition of a third lane to the Champlain Bridge. It points out that the communities to be impacted by an expansion have continuously objected to this proposal along with the city of Ottawa and the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. The petition calls on Parliament to oppose the expansion of the Champlain Bridge and to refuse to authorize the allocation of any funds for such expansion.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to this House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition which contains 25 signatures of constituents of the riding of Simcoe North. The petitioners request that Parliament regulate the longstanding Canadian practice of marketing generic drugs in a size, shape and colour similar to that of their brand name equivalents.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 77 and 86.

Question No. 77-

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

With respect to the jointly administered Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy Park acquisition fund, what has the government through the department of heritage determined to be: ( a ) the amount of money for use in the purchase of lands north of Active Pass for fiscal 1996-97 and ( b ) the priority list of those locations north of Active Pass which are to be purchased?

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Within their total allocation of $60 million to the Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy, PMHL, over five years, the governments of Canada and British Columbia have not specified precise expenditures for each fiscal year. Instead, priorities for land acquisition are being determined on an ongoing basis as lands that meet PMHL selection criteria become available on a willing seller-willing buyer basis. Similarly, the proportion of those lands that lie north or south of Active Pass and their relative priority for acquisition can fluctuate depending on factors that include the potential contribution of available lands to the protected area objectives of the PMHL, their ability to meet or exceed land selection criteria, and cost. Some of these private lands are north of Active Pass, including some that because of their priority interest are under active but confidential consideration with land owners. Land acquisition expenditures in 1995-96 totalled $10.75 million.

Question No. 86-

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Regarding war veterans' benefits, could the Minister of Veterans Affairs indicate: ( a ) what are the number of veterans who were receiving a war disability pension and died during the last reporting period of 12 months; ( b ) what was the total of war disability pensions paid to those in ( a ) in the requested reporting period; ( c ) how many of those in ( a ) left spouses or survivors in receipt of all or a portion of the war disability or survivors' allowance; ( d ) what was the total value of the pensions and/or allowances in ( c ); ( e ) how many of those in ( a ) were in receipt of moneys under the veterans independance program and ( f ) what was the total value of funds referred to in ( e )?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Secretary of State (Veterans) (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)]

(a) During fiscal year 1995-96, 5,030 veterans who had been receiving war disability pensions died.

(b) The approximate amount of disability pension benefits, including prisoner of war compensation, paid to this group was $17,750,000.

(c) 3,430 of these veterans left spouses or survivors.

(d) The approximate amount of survivors' benefits paid to this group during the portion of fiscal year 1995-96 that survivor benefits were payable was $11,594,000, based on medical disabilities and prisoner of war compensation.

(e) 2,394 of these veterans who died during fiscal year 1995-96 were in receipt of benefits under the veterans independence program, VIP.

(f) These veterans were paid approximately $4,988,000 in VIP benefits.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and Group No. 2 of motions.

Canada Elections Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has five minutes left.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, think of all we can do in five minutes. It is fantastic.

So, I was reminding you of how pleased I am to speak on Bill C-63 because the type of representative we will establish as parliamentarians depends on it.

I was reminding you of how sad I am to see that the government did not include the opposition parties in this House, that is, the official opposition and the third party, in the consultation and drafting process of this bill.

And I was reminding you of how proud we are, as an opposition party, to have been able to depend on the hon. member for Bellechasse, who combines the qualities of a highly skilled lawyer and those of a seasoned parliamentarian with such flair.

I was also reminding you of all the motions we have to put forward because this bill leaves so much to be desired. We hope that the government will agree to those amendments, because we believe that they will be better for democracy.

I was reminding you of how easy it can be, in this democratic system of ours, to make ourselves heard, even when one comes from a humble background-and I am certainly a case in point-since I, the son of a labourer, was able to run for office and get elected in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve after a campaign that cost only $35,000. When we come to think of it, it is really not much,

compared to the Americans who almost have to be an official member of a lobby to be elected.

We know that the quality of our electoral practices depends on a number of things. We brought to the attention of the government the fact that there is a means to keep the process under control, which is called a list of electors.

You know how important this voters' list is, since it supposedly contains the names of all the people who can vote and who, as we know, meet a number of requirements in terms mainly of citizenship, age and place of residence.

We have questions regarding the government's refusal to allow the age of voters to be shown on the list of electors. It is a questionable position. The more the list will include detailed information, the easier it will be for all parties concerned to identify cheaters. There is nothing partisan about that.

You will certainly understand that if, on election day, workers at a polling station greet at their table a man named Réal Ménard who, according to the list of electors, is 34 years old and the person standing in front of them seems to be 70 years old, they will know that something is wrong. The vigilance of the staff on election day will help identify cheaters and stop the voting process when unauthorized people show up at the poll. I think the government's position to refuse such an argument is questionable.

The same thing applies to gender identification. It is not a matter of quality or quantity, but simply a matter of knowing if we are dealing with a male or a female voter. I take these things very seriously and it seems to me that it would be in our best interests to have as much information as possible in order to identify cheaters.

We cannot accept the rather obsessive argument of the Reform Party that the availability of this information will lead to sexual harassment. It is true that the list of electors is a public document and that the chief electoral officer has to make it available to any individual or group upon request. But I still do not think the Reformers' argument is valid.

The existence of such a list is not the kind of factor that would encourage people who have a predisposition towards sexual harassment to act on their impulses. We do not want to minimize the importance of this extremely complex problem, but there is certainly no correlation between the amendment we are proposing and the kind of legislation the Reform Party wants to see passed in this House.

We are much too aware of the importance of representation. We know only too well what it means to have an elections act that is truly reflective of the wishes of all parties. I believe the member, whose riding escapes me for the moment, but of which he, no doubt, is the worthy representative, knows the importance of consensus in this matter. It is not true that in matters of legitimacy, in matters which concerns us as parliamentarians and members of Parliament, we can afford to do without a real debate.

It is not true that we should be delighted by the haste shown by the government. This government did not show a lack of courtesy when the time came to consult us on the issue of riding redistribution and revision of the electoral map.

The hon. member for Bellechasse is in a very good position to confirm that we were very closely involved in the process. He reminded us that, with the help of all parties represented in the House, we took more than a year to do the required revision work.

Why the sudden haste, the lack of courtesy on the part of the government and its representatives, who decided not to call upon the opposition parties, since we know that the House would have come out of this a better House? Think about the impact we would have had if we had been able to say that the bill before us, Bill C-63 to amend the Elections Act, is truly what all parties in the House wanted. I believe the government treated this matter off-handedly.

I think that the government did not live up to its responsibilities, and certainly lacked courtesy, by not allowing the opposition to fully participate in the review and enhancement of such an important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you are as committed to democracy as I am, and that makes you a very endearing Speaker, but do you not think that it would have been advisable to take advantage of the debate to discuss the funding of political parties?

I know that in a few minutes we will have the opportunity to discuss this matter, but I believe that it would have been wiser for the government to go back to the basic meaning of the word. It would have been a lot better for the government to draw inspiration from the practices currently in effect in Quebec.

As you know, and I will conclude on this, there has been for more than a decade in Quebec a political party financing act which is extremely democratic. And I will get back to this later.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank both the hon. member for Bellechasse and the member for Calgary West for their participation in the committee. I very much appreciated, as I did that of all members of my own party, their participation in the discussions involved with amendments to this particularly important piece of legislation.

Before I specifically deal with the motions that are before us I want to make one comment, in particular as it relates to something

that my colleague from Calgary West said and my colleague from Bellechasse. This bill came to the committee after first reading and the role of the committee after first reading.

It is important also to acknowledge that there was a royal commission, the Lortie commission, in 1991 that dealt specifically with some fundamental changes that ought to occur in electoral reform in Canada.

My hon. colleague will know that there were literally dozens and dozens, hundreds in fact, hours of representations and work that was done for the Lortie commission and the good work that has been done by our own House committee on procedure and House affairs.

The government's reaction and response with the bill that has come before us today is not something that was written on the back of an envelope. There has been a significant genesis that has evolved that has brought us to this period today. It is important for listeners and for colleagues of this House to remember that it is extremely important to have a consensus, in particular when it is dealing with this most important matter of electoral change.

As the chairman, I was particularly pleased to see that in principle there was a general consensus or an acceptance on the issue of a voter registry and that there was a general consensus on the principle of a shorter electoral campaign in view of the costs, the significant cost issues involved.

I know I will have an opportunity to speak to a number of other issues as they are presented later in this debate but I also want to specifically talk about the motion of my hon. friend. The list of electors derived from the federal registry will be distributed to the candidates and political parties.

The date of birth information in particular in our view is not considered essential to proper identification of voters on the list of electors. That is not just our view as the government and it is not just the view of many Canadians. It is important that the privacy commissioner's view is also considered, as I know my hon. colleague would want to have it considered.

I share the view that the date of birth information reveals personal information about voters. I do not believe that Canadians are prepared to see that level of personal information shared so widely.

I accept and respect the views that are being presented in this House by my hon. colleagues but I have to respectfully submit in response to this particular motion that I think it is an intrusion. In fact, the privacy commissioner and the chief electoral officer have informed the committee not only on the issues of date of birth but also as it relates to gender, that on the second point, gender information, raised by my colleague, the opposition whip, it was felt it was useful for administrative identifiers for electors who have names common to both sexes.

My colleague, the hon. member for Calgary, was talking about the gender issue. I think it is important that the privacy commissioner stated that he did not see the voluntary collection of privacy information as a significant issue. In other words, gender was not a significant issue and he did not recommend the removal of gender. It was for those reasons that while we heard the views of hon. members, we felt it was the preferred approach to take the view we took in the legislation presented.

In responding specifically to the two motions contained in this group, those are the comments that I wish to offer to my hon. colleagues. I want to thank them for their participation. I regret that they did not gain or feel they had the same opportunity to participate in the debate at the committee stage.

They may recall that in March of this year the chief electoral officer came to our committee and presented the concept of a registry. I defer to the seniority on the committee of my hon. colleague, the member for Bellechasse, who was on this committee for quite a period of time prior to my assuming its chair.

He will recall that the concept of a registry is something that was universally endorsed as a good concept. I know that he does not necessarily take issue with that concept but it is perhaps the process that he did not find as friendly as he would have preferred.

While I regret that he has not endorsed it, perhaps over the course of this debate as we discuss this he may see his way clear to finding support for the proposal as it is being put forward. I thank my colleagues for their participation. This concludes my remarks related to this grouping of motions.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to contribute to this debate as it relates to two specific articles.

It was interesting that the member from the Bloc said there is information that has to be given at a time when a person has a driver's licence. Of course that is true but the last time I looked we do not distribute the information from the driver's licence to candidates and political parties or post the information in such a way that it becomes public.

Clearly the idea of the inclusion of the date of birth may be of value with respect to the registry itself, but surely to do with the list of electors I cannot say I agree with my colleague. I cannot see any value to having that information. With respect to the comments just made that the privacy commissioner did not see the inclusion of designation of sex as a significant issue or as necessary, I would like to read a letter which is very indicative of correspondence that many of the members of our party have received and I suggest with

respect that there may be Liberals who have received this kind of correspondence.

It is dated November 29, 1995: "Thousands of Canadian women attempt to maintain the security of their domiciles with gender neutral references whenever possible. These efforts are nullified at election time by lists of electors which clearly note gender, complete with a current address. This information is widely circulated, being readily available in post offices throughout Canada, and used, copied and distributed in campaign offices extensively. When one of the research assistants to one of our members questioned Elections Canada about this system, the research assistant was informed that it was necessary to protect the integrity of the list".

The writer in this case was from the province of Alberta. She wrote: "The province of Alberta manages to elect their government without putting females at risk".

I ask the Liberals if they would not rethink this particular item. Unfortunately we have reached a point in our society-and it is a low point in our society-where women are put at risk because of certain dangerous elements in our society. We have to be much more sensitive in this place to what we are doing. With all due respect to the privacy commissioner, for whom I generally have a great deal of respect, I cannot respect his position that this is not a significant issue.

I would like to point out to the Liberals that the protestation made a couple of minutes ago that perhaps there should have been more discussion and more consultation at the committee stage is a little hollow. It is my understanding that there was a real rush to get this through committee and that, in fact, the Liberals did not allow sufficient time. As a matter of fact, it is probable that the Liberals, because they have left this matter for so long, are probably going to have to invoke closure to even get this through in time to meet their agenda.

Once again the House of Commons is being treated like a rubber stamp. The Liberals, when they suddenly wake up and discover that they have a problem with a timetable or legislation, out of the clear blue sky, very quickly, come to the House and say: "Let us punch it right on through". It is an unfortunate practice, an unfortunate happenstance, that the Liberals have chosen, systematically, to treat the House as a rubber stamp.

That being a very partisan comment, let me go back to the issue at hand. Unlike one of the Bloc members who said she would not plead or she would not negotiate, I am asking very sincerely, on behalf of the women of Canada, that the government take a very serious look at this issue of including gender on voters' lists. I say that because there are single women within my family and acquaintances who, for example, will put an initial in a phone book as opposed to designating themselves as being female.

This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of public safety for women. I ask the Liberals to rethink their position on this issue and vote in favour of the exclusion of gender on electors' lists.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral)]

I now recognize the hon. member for-

[An hon. member]

Matapédia-Matane.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral)]

Matapédia-Matane. But I know it by heart.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate you, except you should remember that I represent Matapédia-Matane.

I would like to open up the debate just a bit, rather than limiting my remarks solely to the amendment by my colleague, the member for Bellechasse, who deserves special congratulations for his amendments, because he introduced several.

I think that we are moving a bit too quickly, and that we should look a bit more closely at what has been done. I am not on the committee, but it is important not to act in haste. In my view, there is a great deal at stake.

A year, or a year and a half ago as I recall, the riding of Matapédia-Matane was even going to be wiped off the map.

The people I spoke with said: "That's crazy. Who thought that up?" I said: "It is a mandate of the government, which thinks that Matapédia-Matane does not have the necessary population, and they want to go by population". That got quite a reaction out of people.

The second agreement was that, instead of eliminating the riding of Matapédia-Matane, they are going to redraw the boundaries of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. This does not make any sense either, because if I draw you a map, or if you travel at all, you will see that the riding of Matapédia-Matane takes in Matane, obviously, and Amqui; on the north shore, Sainte-Anne-des-Monts and Cap-Chat as far as Madeleine; on the other shore, it takes in Carleton and Maria, no small distance.

The old riding consisted of the triangle formed by Mont-Joli, Matane and Amqui, which worked fine. There is no longer any sense of belonging. People really are right to say that they should go back to the drawing board and set up another commission, one that will listen to people in the regions. Village by village, these people have built a sort of family. When one village is lumped in with another, they feel hard done by, excluded. They are virtually excluded. I am therefore asking them to go back to the drawing board, or if they do not have the courage to do so, that at the least

the Bloc amendments as proposed by my colleague from Bellechasse be accepted.

Looking at the amendment proposing that the date of birth be included, this strikes me as logic itself. I would not like to pick up on the arguments of other members who have been quoting Boileau. One could quote other philosophers and say this: Listen up here. When something is obvious, it is obvious, so let us give up demonstrating it over and over. There is something obvious involved here, and we are trying to demonstrate an evident truth. Let us give up on that and just accept what is pure common sense.

What are the advantages other than those already mentioned? When someone turns 15, we will know it. When we say, in connection with the total population, that there are so and so many people in Canada, in Quebec, aged 16, 17, 18, we will know and can then take the necessary steps to provide them with some political education. The first time somebody votes is really something special for him or her. The schools are giving young people more and more information now, but those who have never shown any interest could be given more preparation when they reach 16, 17 or 18. With the figures in front of us, we will be able to help them and provide them with more information.

For these reasons, because there are many arguments on both sides, from the Reform Party and from the Bloc, I am asking the House to support the amendment of my colleague from Bellechasse, and I shall be speaking later on the other amendments.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words in this debate. I did not intend to, but I was listening to my colleagues, and I thought I would like to comment on the amendments presented by the hon. member for Bellechasse.

By the same token, I would like to thank him for and congratulate him on the excellent work he did on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois and the official opposition, but of course, first and foremost, on behalf of voters in the riding of Bellechasse, in Quebec and even in Canada. The amendments he proposed will make the process more democratic. That being the case, every citizen of Quebec and Canada stands to gain.

It would be too easy to go along with the demands of those who want the voters' list to be absolutely minimal, the excuse being respect for privacy and personal information, and so forth. The hon. member for Laval Centre made a very apt comment when she said that every citizen is entitled to a passport. The passport contains a certain amount of information, and no one challenges the need to include all this information. It only makes sense.

We all know there was quite a to-do about passports, so there must be some consensus in this House on the issue. When we go abroad, it is important for the customs officer to know who we are. It is even more important when we vote to elect the people who represent and govern us. In that case there must be no misunderstanding about the identity of the people who exercise their franchise.

I think it is important to indicate the gender of the voter on the list. I know this is a very emotional issue, but as the hon. member for Laval Centre pointed out earlier, the first name often gives a good indication of the gender of the voter, but in some cases, it may not work.

Take my own first name, for instance. Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to indicate my first name, which is Stephane. Unlike the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, my first name is spelled with an "e" at the end. While for many francophones the name "Stéphane" is clearly a man's name, for many of our anglophone colleagues it is not obvious that the name "Stéphane" with an "e" at the end is a man's name.

I can tell you that in the three years I have sat in the House of Commons, I have received a lot of mail addressed "Dear Mme Stéphane Bergeron" or "Mrs. Stéphane Bergeron" or when people wanted to make my name masculine, they would take off the "e", because, in English, such names, like Joanne or Suzanne, are usually women's names. I think, under the circumstances, to avoid any confusion, the gender of the voter must appear on the electoral list.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Camille.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Camille is a fine example as well. I am not talking about the people at the clerk's table. In order to make sure there is no confusion, the voters' list must indicate the voter's gender. Similarly, and once again to avoid confusion, dates of birth must be indicated. That is obvious.

Up to now, my colleagues have been indicating the importance of including voters' date of birth on the electoral list. Some might point out that some first names might give an idea of the age of the voter.

I keep coming back to my name, Stéphane, a relatively new choice in first names for French Canadians and Quebecers. Adalbert would be an older sounding name, I might say, or a more venerable one. That said, you have to understand that, for there not to be any doubt, the date of birth should be given.

I still have four minutes left? I had already started my conclusion, so I will have to reorganize my thoughts so I can continue.

As I was saying before, while Stephen might have a more modern ring to it and Adalbert or Canute a more ancient one, it is obvious that just with the first name-although earlier on I heard

my Reform colleague suggesting that we get rid of the first name altogether. What kind of information are we going to be left with on the voters' list if we reduce it to such a minimum?

God knows that not one member in this House would dare say or do such a thing, but there is no doubt that eventually, if the voters' list was watered down to this extent, certain evil doers could take this opportunity to corrupt democracy.

If that was the case, Canadians and Quebecers as a whole would come out the losers. Therefore I strongly urge all my colleagues in this House, who support democracy and the need for transparency in a democracy, to vote for the amendments moved by my colleague from Bellechasse.