Debates of Nov. 25th, 1996

Questions On The Order Paper

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to please put all his comments through the Chair rather than directly across the floor. His colleague, the chief whip, will tell him how hard that is on the morale of the Speaker.

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 Motion No. 6.

Canada Elections Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Kootenay East who has four minutes remaining in his intervention.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the concluding portion of my remarks I was referring to the fact that what we are trying to do here is create an improved bill respecting elections in Canada and the fact that I believe we have good will in this House and are attempting to do it in such a way that it be non-partisan.

However, politics being the partisan effort that it is, I would draw to the attention of the Liberals the fact that during the last Parliament it was they who were carrying on in quite a manner about the fact that the Conservatives would bring in closure. It was the Liberals who put in their red book appendix an article about people who would ascend to the position of deputy chair of this chamber.

In other words, whether we like it or not, the reality is it seems when people move from this side of the House to the other side of the House, certainly historically between the Liberals and the Conservatives, they generally carry on the position of the people on the government side of the House.

I therefore draw that to their attention because it is important to realize that when we are trying to craft something here we are trying to craft a set of rules that we can play a game with; not play a game in the sense of frivolous but indeed compete in.

Many of us enjoyed watching the Grey Cup yesterday. It was interesting that the field was of equal width at either end. It was interesting was that one set of goal posts was not lower or wider. Both sets of goal posts were exactly the same.

In other words, when we set up the rules of engagement for whatever the competition may be, whether it be a football game or a political contest, the rules be tailored in such a way that they are fair to all participants, that all participants have equal opportunity.

We know as it presently stands the government has the potential of turning around and doing whatever it will with respect to calling an election. It actually becomes something of a joke. I note in the province of Alberta the premier has been saying "soon, soon" much the same way the health minister here keeps on saying "soon, soon" with respect to tobacco taxes. The point is the

government of the day has the power to do what it will do when it wants to do it.

With that in mind, it is all the more important therefore that we make sure that the 36 day campaign be restricted exclusively to a general election. As stated previously, each party must go through a nomination process. This is a process where each party goes out of its way to cast its net as wide as it can to get as highly qualified candidates as it can. Each party must go through a process of fundraising, particularly at the constituency level where byelections are being called. Each party must build a team of people to help the candidate, help the campaign for that candidate to become successful.

As I have stated previously, it is for that reason we must have rules that are fair or as close to fair and equitable as we can so that each candidate and each party is given the opportunity to have as much time as is required to get the job done properly.

I recognize that this is a Reform motion and it has been the history of this government that motions from parties other than the Liberal Party have received very scant attention. However, in this particular case, I think it is really important for future byelections that will be held under this legislation that the members and the government, because it will be leading its members, take a serious look at this and recognize that this is the only way that we can keep the field for the election contest the same and the goal posts at the same height.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have before us an amendment proposed by the Reform Party to maintain a slightly longer period for a byelection than one would for a general election.

I support this type of amendment, and I will explain why. In a general election, the parties knew it was coming, so they have a chance to set up their campaign machine, the people who volunteer their services such as fundraising, an indispensable adjunct to the democratic process which includes exercising the right to vote and the election campaign that precedes voting day. Obviously, in a general election, the parties have had a chance to prepare for the event.

However, with a byelection that comes out of the blue, the parties do not get the same advance notice, except of course the government party which has all the time in the world to decide when. It is clear that the government party would have an unfair competitive edge since it sets the date, which gives it plenty of time to get ready to face the opposition parties in a campaign that will last for a very limited period.

In that kind of situation, the opposition parties would have to recruit volunteers very quickly, which is not easy, and get their grassroots financing. And by the way, those parties that are funded by multinationals get huge cheques. As you can imagine, that kind of fundraising is much easier. The other parties, including the Bloc Quebecois, which raise money from their members and the general public in the form of small contributions, will have to work much harder over a much longer period of time.

It will therefore be understood that this is necessary in byelections so that all parties, the government party and the opposition parties, may act under fair rules and within an extended period of time. The Reform Party motion is well received in this connection.

Let me remind you that the government party has not always acted with-shall I say-all the respect it ought to have shown to the opposition parties. I refer specifically to the byelections held last February in three Quebec ridings.

At that very moment, the Bloc Quebecois was involved in a leadership race. The energies of our activists, our volunteers, were focussed on that, yet we had at the same time to campaign in three separate ridings. This shows that the precautions contained in the Reform motion are not without purpose.

Indeed, the government party, understandably, wants to hold an election at the time that is best for it and, consequently, the worst time for the opposition parties. They cannot be faulted for that. It is to be expected, strategically speaking. Nevertheless, the public interest must take precedent in such cases. The goal must be, not so much to give the opposition parties the opportunity to get organized, but to ensure that the public interest is protected by a democratically held election.

You will agree that, if the opposition parties lack the time to prepare themselves, to get organized, to explain what they have to offer to the population of a riding holding a byelection, the voters in that riding are being totally deprived of the public debate that ensures a healthy democracy. The voters in the riding are deprived of the possibility of making the most informed choice possible.

Because we are in a democracy, we have to respect not only the underlying principles, but the means. I do not doubt that the government party has all the necessary respect for the underlying principles of democracy, but it must also have respect for the means.

Let us face it, a party in power will one day sit on the opposition side. Consequently, what I have to say today in support of the Reform motion is, in reality, also for the benefit of the party in power at the present time.

You will have understood, of course, that by the time this rule applies, the Bloc will likely be elsewhere, its mission accomplished, but on behalf of the democracy which is, and will remain,

in Canada and in Quebec, I believe that the Reform Party motion ought to be well received by this House.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to that of the other members of this House in the debate on the amendment proposal by the Reform Party.

The arguments put forward by the member before me are clearly neither very logical, nor plausible nor of much value to democracy in Canada or Quebec.

I am, however, surprised at the amount of time spent in this House-an hour, an hour and one quarter-discussing an amendment that should be unanimously approved and be self-evident. The federal Liberal government should be automatically interested, in my opinion, in such a claim, which would serve well all Canadians, all political parties and, consequently, democracy in Canada.

However, I am not surprised by the arrogance of the Liberals, yet again, in failing to listen to our arguments and to try to find a way through compromise for all members of Parliament to come up with a better electoral act, which would serve all political parties and therefore all Canadians and Quebecers.

I am surprised that they are preparing to reform the electoral act in disregard of principles established in all western democracies for the past 50 years. Is it, for example, common practice for the date of an election to be set at the whim of a Prime Minister? Is that common practice in a democracy? Is there anywhere in the world where this behaviour is permitted?

The first reform proposed by the government ought to have been: "Every four or five years, we will have a vote on the first Monday or first Sunday of November or October". The month does not matter, what counts is a set date for elections. This I think would be the reform Canadians and Quebecers would appreciate the most.

It is also out of the ordinary for the date to be set, when a seat becomes vacant through a member's resignation or death, at the Prime Minister's pleasure and not through a consensus of all parties reached through consultation or, simply, 60 or 90 days after the departure or death of a member.

It seems to me that we should have a date, as they have in most European countries, a predetermined date for the general elections; and a dateline for byelections after the incumbent's departure, instead of the Prime Minister having the inside track through picking and choosing the election date.

As a matter of fact, since the beginning of the century, the Liberal Party has always acted in its own best interests with regard to general elections in Canada. This century, it has been in power for 60 or 70 years out of 90. It has repeatedly refused to pass legislation in keeping with that of major western democracies, preferring to hang on to its archaic privileges and to use them gradually so as to keep the advantage whenever an election is called.

This fat cat party is completely out of touch with Canadian reality; it has no regard for democracy in action at election time. What matters to the Liberal Party is to seize power. What matters is

to stay in power, and anything goes, including handing out plums to party supporters, ministers handing out discretionary contracts to whoever best served not society, not the government or citizens as a whole, but the Liberal Party.

When the former Minister of National Defence hands out a $75,000 discretionary contract for a little survey that was never conducted and never will be, because it was awarded to a party treasurer, you get the picture. And this man was one of the heavy weights on the government's front benches. What did the Prime Minister do? He applauded the handing out of these discretionary contracts to friends of the party.

In the meantime the minister's wife was patronage adviser to the Prime Minister. Imagine the racket this will lead to, to raise funds, collect election funds, organize the next elections, flout democracy. And who cares about setting a date? Whenever the polls are favourable, the government will pick a date and try to rout the opposition. That has been the typical attitude of the Liberal Party since the beginning of the century. If anything, this bill shows that this party intends to maintain democracy in Canada by perpetuating that attitude.

I mentioned the former defense minister, but let us speak about the former heritage minister. One month after the election, she invited 20 persons to a small private cocktail party for $2,000 each, thus collecting $40,000 for the event. In the following months she granted a dozen of these people discretionary research contracts the likes of which we have never seen and will never see again. She used public funds to reward people who contributed financially to her political party and to her own election. This is what the minister did. How did the Prime Minister react? He stood up and applauded. That is the vision of the Liberal Party for you.

A reform like this one should be discussed among Canadians and Quebecers, in both our countries, since it has an impact on the future of democracy in this House, and there should be broader consultations. But what does the government do? It gags us. It uses parliamentary procedures to limit debate so it can rush this bill through and be free to call the next election whenever it pleases.

With a small but important amendment like the one proposed by the Reform Party, which members of the Bloc support, we are saying there is at least one amendment we are submitting to prevent them from repeating what they did in the byelection held six months ago, which everybody criticized.

That byelection led to the squandering of $100,000 for no reason at all except that the member wanted to be reconfirmed; it was just a big show. So, the Deputy Prime Minister used public funds to look good and, to make sure she would be elected, she limited the number of days and quickly announced an election to throw the other political parties off balance.

She should have had a deadline, as proposed by Reform members. But I would go further than what Reform members are proposing. Each time there is a byelection, it should be announced on a fixed date, that is, the day after the resignation. It would always be the same number of days, whether 60 or 90, so that each party knows when to expect an election.

But once again, the Liberal Party prefers to hide. The Liberal Party will try to cheat again. It is used to depend on such schemes for its survival. This is what the Liberal Party is, a party of schemers.

We could also say many other things about that party that talks out of both sides of its mouth. That party says one thing during the election campaign and another when elected. The members of that party do not give a damn about the promises they made about the GST or the Constitution.

I would say the Liberal Party's motto, when campaigning, is: "We are never too poor not to make promises". So the Liberals promise anything and, when in office, they forget their promises, telling themselves that they will certainly fool the people in the last six months by giving out grants, thinking that people will not remember anything.

In a big convention where they will get people together, they will give them free food and drinks, have a big party and get applauded for keeping 87 per cent of their promises. They will dare put on another big media event.

We know quite well that the Liberal Party's main promises have never been kept. The Liberal Party's distinctive feature is indeed to govern with the objective of remaining in office and-as the old people back home would say-to grease its friends' palms. This reform is a very small one. The amendment that is proposed to us could at least limit the damage.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for me to get on the record concerning what is happening here today and to talk about some of the very reasoned amendments the Reform Party has put forward. I do not think there is anything here that is out in left or right field. Very serious ideas have been put forward by our party to try to improve this bill.

We hope the government is, even at this late hour, considering some of our proposals that we think would make the elections act better. They would also help all Canadians believe, understand and hope that the government is concerned about consensus and

consultation on something as important and non-partisan as the elections act.

I hope the government will consider and listen both here and in committee to the proposals we have brought forward. I think they have a lot of merit to them.

It is disappointing that the government uses time allocation at its first opportunity to push the bill through very quickly. Since it seems to be intent on doing that, it is really unfortunate because this type of legislation should be built on consultation, co-operation and an all-party consensus.

Therefore, first of all I have to voice my displeasure and concern that time allocation is being used again in the House. It is almost like the New York stock market; every day is a new record around here for the number of times the government has used time allocation. It has certainly been used far more than it was used under Mulroney. It is used routinely to put measures through the House when good planning could have obviated the necessity.

Mr. Kingsley, the chief electoral officer, brought forward this report back in March. It has been available to the House for months and months. Instead, it is dealing with the legislation at the 11th hour. It has to be rammed through in two days or else. It has to go to the Senate and be rammed through there and it has to come back.

The government has had this report from Mr. Kingsley for six or eight months. That is just poor House management. I do not know what the deputy House leader has to do with that, but he should take note that it should not be necessary to routinely use time allocation in the House.

Just two weeks ago we debated the speech from the throne because we had nothing else to talk about. Instead of debating issues of the day and having ample time to do it, we reverted back to the speech from the throne. Everybody droned on about something that is eight or ten months old that nobody cared about and there was no issue at hand, instead of debating important legislation. That is poor management and a disrespect to the House and to the work of members of Parliament.

Obviously I cannot restate that again except to say that it is very disappointing and very discouraging to those of us who thought that we would have ample time to debate serious subjects like this.

On the particular motion, there is some good logic why there should be notice given for byelection dates. The hon. member for Lethbridge, a man with as much experience in parliamentary affairs as the Prime Minister and with as many years in public office as anyone in the House, has pointed out the obvious need for fairness toward opposition and government parties alike.

The proposal is that opposition parties should be given notice of any byelection that may be coming up. It should not be dropped out of the blue. The opposition party does not have the inside track that the government has when it decides to choose its byelection dates.

If the number of days in the writ period are to be shortened and if someone resigns on the government side-of course this is well discussed behind the scenes and the government decides on a date-the members on the opposition side do not know it is coming. All of a sudden someone has been promoted to heaven, or the other place, as they like to call it here. They find they have a job for life and all the perks that go with that. I do not agree with that but it is another issue for another day.

It is particularly disturbing if it happens to be in a riding where opposition parties do not see it coming. Suddenly they find themselves scrambling to make up ground with only a 36-day period to do so. For example, a candidate may not have been chosen, or a war chest put together to fight that election. Sometimes a party's constitution requires several days' notice to get things up and running. It is very difficult for an opposition party to mount the campaign it should and which democracy demands. It should be a fair and unbiased election period.

I hope the government will listen to the amendment. Reform has put forward a couple of ideas. First, it should be a minimum 30-day period before the byelection could be held. Obviously that gives everybody the same writ period but at least everybody gets a little bit of notice. It has been Reform's longstanding belief that a byelection should be held a maximum of six months after a seat becomes vacant.

The way it is right the Prime Minister must call a byelection but he does not have to call it for six months. He has a year after that to call it. There could be people without representation in the House of Commons for 18 months. We have seen it happen before where a byelection is put off and put off. That is unfortunate for the democratic process where people are clamouring for a representative who no longer exists to do something for them in Parliament and they do not have that person there for them.

To be fair to the political parties there should be a 30-day waiting period if we are going to have a 36-day writ. A 30-day waiting period is the least we could ask for. I would hope the government would consider a six-month maximum so that people in this country are not without representatives for longer than six months. Surely six months is enough time to organize a byelection. If it can be done in 36 days surely it can be done in six months. Let us not play politics with the people's right to be represented. Let us let them have a seat here in the House and put a six month maximum on it.

There is a realm of reforms that could be considered in the whole elections act. Some are not covered here. Reform of course made quite a play for fixed election dates. The reason for that was so the government does not get the inside track, does not have an advantage that opposition parties do not have available to them. That includes many things, everything from contributions, to tax deductibility of the same and so on. There are many things that could still be and maybe should still be considered by the government in the months ahead.

On this motion I appeal to its sense of fairness. I hope the government has been listening to these debates and will look at what are very cogent arguments. We are trying to be reasonable and fair. From a majority government's point of view it is very important that it is fair because obviously it can ram through anything it wants.

I appeal to the government, its sense of fairness, to come our way on this one. Give us some of what we are asking in a sense of fairness. Perhaps then this time allocation pill which has been a very difficult one to swallow, will be somewhat easier to take if we see the government is serious about consultation, debate and compromise.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we debate today this bill on which, unfortunately, time allocation has been imposed at the final stage.

For our constituents who may be watching or listening in, a time allocation motion is a gag motion used by the government to preclude the opposition and the third party from using the time normally allocated to them in a parliamentary democracy to provide the people of Canada with information about the important issue of election organization, and party financing in particular.

I will address this first group of motions, stressing that, in our opinion, in byelections, the electoral period should remain 47 days. I will get right to the point, which is that we need enough time to raise public funds for byelections. I might add supporting arguments like the fact that some ridings cover very large areas. It is true in Quebec and other provinces. In fact, some ridings will be even larger come January because of the new electoral boundaries coming into effect. And to run a proper campaign worthy of being called democratic, more time is needed, given that the parties' information campaign cannot play the same role in a byelection as in a general election.

Coming back to the first point on my list, public financing, I can tell you that, as a matter of general policy, the federal government, the Liberal government, should have the courage to suggest public funding of political parties to Canadians. This is a proposal the Parti Quebecois and the Quebec premier had the courage to make to Quebecers in 1977-it was in fact the very first act passed by the PQ government-and one they are still congratulating themselves for. I might add that even the Quebec Liberal Party was revitalized by having to go door to door in an effort to raise funds other than large corporate donations, which is the whole point.

What does public financing of political parties mean? It means that political parties must not rely on large corporations for which donations of $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 are no big deal, especially when such donations mean that citizens whose interests run counter to those of these large corporations systematically find themselves at a disadvantage.

Indeed, the fact that the federal Liberal government did not include a clause providing for public funding of political parties flies in the face of the democratic principle "one person, one vote", each vote carrying the same weight in deciding the results of the election and giving all citizens the same influence on their members and their government.

Basically, what the federal government is telling us is that it plans to continue to seek donations from these major sources of capital. It plans to remain under their influence. We will continue to be influenced by these major financial backers.

Of course, businesses have interests and these interests are often jobs. However, their influence is already strong enough without having political parties totally surrender to these groups, whose interests are not those of the general public.

The Liberal Party meant to be liberal, in the broad sense of the term. However, it is rather conservative, if not very conservative, regarding this issue. What it is doing will tarnish and even undermine the real efforts made by candidates and by teams in every riding, when confronted to other teams and candidates who do not reject such funding.

The Bloc Quebecois is very proud of the fact that it got 54 candidates elected in Quebec, including a record number who got a majority of the total number of votes. It just so happens that the Bloc Quebecois unilaterally pledged to fund its campaign based on the Quebec legislation.

I know that, in other provinces, some candidates would really like to get elected with the concrete support of ordinary citizens, of people who contribute $5, $20 or, when they can afford to do so, $100 to exert their democratic influence. Indeed, I have often had discussions with members from the other side who would love to renew the democratic source of their funding. On this issue, no one from the other side can look at us in the eyes and say: "We are not influenced by major financial backers". No one can do that.

To be sure, we could, if we wanted, find government decisions that have been influenced not by citizens who voted according to a democratic process, not by organizations that invested time and effort in the riding, but by financial backers who went over everybody's head, who had easy access to ministers, and who were able to send the necessary signals to make sure their position was the one that prevailed.

You might wonder why we, the Bloc, wish the Canadian federation would improve its democracy. I am asking that question in front of you because the Canadian people deserves to have a system that works according to democratic rules rather than a system that pretends to give everyone a vote but that, actually, creates the conditions to allow a team to get in power and afterwards to act only according to the interests of major players who remain hidden while the electoral process goes on.

It is all the more so in the case of a byelection, when we need time to go about collecting funds. We of the Bloc, in particular, will continue to do this.

We want to have the time to do it. It might be useless for us to hope so, but we continue to hope that the voices will be so loud and so numerous on the government side that the government will end up adopting this practice, which is a minimum in a democracy.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-63, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 3 with the following:

"she is domiciled and to vote at the"

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-63 be amended, in Clause 12, by replacing line 41 on page 4 with the following:

"referred to in subparagraph 71.011(a)(ii) or (iii). The"

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 10 the following:

"71.011(1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall endeavour to conclude agreements with provinces and territories that maintain permanent lists of electors and the agreements shall provide for the use of such lists by the Chief Electoral Officer.

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where the Chief Electoral Officer has entered into an agreement under subsection (1) for the use of a permanent list of electors, the Chief Electoral Officer shall, for the purposes of holding an election, use any lists obtained under such an agreement."

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-63 be amended, in Clause 22 a ) by replacing line 32 on page 10 with the following:

"tion," b ) by replacing line 3 on page 11 with the following:

"Electors, or" c ) by adding after line 3 on page 11 the following:

"(iii) contained in an existing permanent voter's Register created according to provincial legislation and that the Chief Electoral Officer considers adequate for the purposes of section 71.011;"

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 38 on page 11.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition has two motions in Group No. 5, the Reform Party has three. Our first motion, Motion No. 7, is to replace in the election legislation the notion of "résidence ordinaire" or "main residence" by that of "domicile".

We are giving the government the opportunity to flesh out the proposition it made following the referendum held on October 30, 1995. The government passed in this House a resolution to recognize in principle the distinctiveness of Quebec with regard to language, culture and civil law.

With the notion of "domicile", we are addressing the third characteristic of the distinct society of Quebec, since this is a civil law notion. In Quebec, we usually define "domicile" as the place where the voters have hearth and home, that is where they ordinarily reside.

However, the elections legislation does not use this civil law notion. It seems to me that we need to be consistent, here. Since the government took upon itself to recognize the distinctiveness of

Quebec right after the referendum, it could show it in some concrete way.

Since property and civil rights are defined in the British North America Act, 1867 as a provincial area of jurisdiction, pursuant to section 92(13), it would only be reasonable, at least where Quebec is concerned, since it availed itself of these provisions to develop its own Civil Code, that the notion of "domicile" be used as an eligibility requirement for voters, along with their age. Otherwise, we end up with nothing but wishful thinking expressed in November 1995 without any repercussions.

When drafting a bill for two nations that vote under a unique set of rules of law with different civil law principles, we must take into account the Canadian duality between Quebec's civil law and the common law of the English provinces, where the concept of main residence is very important.

Why impose concepts of common law to a province, which has had a civil law tradition since Confederation and even before, since Quebec's civil code, must I add, was approved by the Parliament of a united Canada the year before the federation was born in 1867?

Our civil code goes back to 1866. It was amended several times since, especially concerning matrimonial regimes. There were the great reforms of 1930-31 following the Dorion Report; the 1964 reforms concerning the community of property, where the husband, although he is the administrator of the community, had to have the consent of his spouse to continue administering the community, at least in general; and the 1970 reform of the matrimonial regimes provided for in the civil code.

From then on, the partnership of acquests became the legal regime in the civil code for spouses without a marriage contract. There were also, in the early 1980s, Bill 89, which was passed by the National Assembly, and the Loi sur le patrimoine familial , which was passed in the late 1980s. This new civil code maintains of course the general principles of French law which has always applied in Quebec.

So why would the government impose upon us legislation which is foreign to us under section 92(13)? Why would it force us to accept terms which have no basis in our legal system? The Fathers of Confederation recognized, in 1867, that Quebec was really a distinct society with regard to its civil law. That did not happen in October of November 1995. This duality in terms of civil law was recognized in 1867 in the founding legislation. Our electoral law must respect that.

We do not need an electoral law which uses the same words from coast to coast for the whole Dominion. The Dominion, in terms of civil law, is comprised of nine provinces that have a common law system and one province that has a civil law tradition, each system having its own merits, of course. We will not debate this any further. That was the first motion brought forward by the official opposition.

The second motion is Motion No. 11. It is just a little strange that we should have had to propose this amendment. This provision should have been in the bill from the outset. In fact, MotionsNos. 12 and 13 brought forward by the Reform Party, which are in the same group, essentially call for the same thing, namely that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada be allowed to use provincial lists.

The same taxpayers pay for the lists of electors in the provinces, where the qualifications of electors are exactly the same, where the basic notions to have the right to vote are exactly the same, the notion of universal suffrage being applied everywhere in Canada. Yet, the bill before us today does not allow the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada to use provincial lists if the enumeration was conducted more than 12 months before the date on which such lists would be used.

In other words, in this connection, the bill could have said that Canada's chief electoral officer is not authorized to use Quebec's list, because the census used to create it was held in September 1995. The census used to create it will run out next May 1, at which time the list will be published, and the list will be as good as possible.

It will therefore be more than 12 months. It is already more than 12 months. The federal government will not be able to use this list, put together at a cost of several million dollars, because the legislator does not wish to recognize the quality of the list drawn up by Quebec's director general of elections. The government does not wish to assume its responsibilities with respect to this work and to legislation that is more forward looking than the federal legislation.

They tell us: "We have not checked the validity of the lists drawn up by Quebec. Quebec's lists are prepared for different polling divisions". These are logistical problems, computer problems.

If Quebec is able to use its permanent list for municipal elections in which the polling divisions are completely different, why is it not possible to use Quebec's provincial list for a federal election in which polling divisions are larger?

Let the computer experts work it out, but as a declaration of principle, I think it obvious that, in the interests of harmony, and also of economy, of the public money for which we are all accountable to our constituents, the broadest possible use of provincial lists should be permitted. I am not speaking only of Quebec's list. It could be Alberta's, or Prince Edward Island's, drawn up with the assistance of Elections Canada on top of that. It is rather strange to see electoral lists drawn up by Elections Canada

excluded from use in a federal election under the pretext that more than 12 months may have gone by.

The correction proposed in Bill C-63 at the committee stage is only a partial one, not allowing the use of the Quebec list of electors. In other words, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada will not be able to use the Quebec list of electors for the election of 75 members of this House.

I respectfully submit that the Bloc Quebecois amendment and the Reform Party amendment strongly resemble each other. Ours is more binding on the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, in that it requires him to attempt to conclude an agreement with the Director General of Elections of Quebec, whereas the Reform amendment does not go quite as far, requiring the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada to check that the provincial voter's register is adequate. If it is found to be adequate, he ought then to make use of it.

I sense that the hon. member for Calgary West is dying to explain his amendment. I shall therefore yield the floor to him, with your permission, Mr. Speaker.