Debates of Nov. 25th, 1996

Canada Elections Act

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on Group No. 5 of the report stage motions relative to Bill C-63. As the hon. member for Bellechasse has noted, there are five motions in this group, three presented by the Reform Party and two by the Bloc Quebecois. They concern three subject matters, two of which I was going to address quickly but I think I will spend a bit of time on the first one, given some of the remarks by the hon. member for Bellechasse.

Motion No. 7 presented by the Bloc Quebecois is a very interesting one. It simply changes the wording in a particular section from "is ordinarily resident" to "is domiciled". As the member explained very well, this is a switch from terminology used in common law to terminology used in the Quebec civil code. At the same time I point to the change away from the terminology that is generally used in the Canada Elections Act, not just in this section but in other sections and also in the general communications of Elections Canada, to terminology more specific to the Quebec elections organization. It is a very interesting proposal and one which on the surface seems fairly trivial. We would tend to oppose it because we believe in keeping the terminology the way it is.

My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois made an interesting observation and I hope that Liberal members were listening to his intervention. He said that the change which he is seeking is consistent with the government's notion of the distinct society clause which was passed through the House late last year. It is important because this motion is really the tip of the iceberg. There are other motions, which I am sure we will have a chance to discuss today, in which the Bloc Quebecois is suggesting that large sections of elections law and the referendum act in Quebec would supersede, or give guidance to or even in the case of the one in question, have veto over federal legislation.

This may well be an accurate interpretation of the wording of the distinct society motion that this Parliament passed, to which the Reform Party was very much opposed. It shows the can of worms that the motion is opening.

Frankly, on a point like this, a reasonable accommodation could be made. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that where notions are virtually identical, in the English version of a federal law we could use common law terminology and in the French version we could use the civil code terminology. As long as the notions are more or less the same that would not create a problem.

However the member for Bellechasse, by proposing this motion and by justifying it the way he has, has raised the broader issue that is raised by the distinct society clause, that is, the idea that there would be a comprehensive special status for Quebec and that it would involve, even on something as important as elections law, a completely different relationship between the Government of Quebec and the Quebec elections office and the Government of Canada and the Canada elections office.

That is instructive because the distinct society clause has potential problems. The clause as passed by this House was very broad in application. It was worded very broadly.

The Reform Party-myself and the leader of the Reform Party-proposed an amendment to that motion which would have made it clear that this particular motion did not give additional powers to the Government of Quebec, did not circumscribe charter rights and did not grant any kind of status to Quebec which would allow it to claim sovereignty under international law. We proposed that in an amendment and it was rejected by the government.

Although I oppose this motion, the hon. member for Bellechasse has made a point which is consistent with the policy of the government. That is why the government should be rethinking its policy. I suspect that some day somebody will take these matters to court to suggest that the distinct society resolution has a wider impact on federal law than the government was previously willing to admit.

Those are my comments on Motion No. 7. I will move on to some of the motions which the Reform Party has proposed.

Motion No. 13 would delete from Bill C-63 the provision which would provide the voters list annually to sitting members of Parliament and registered political parties. We do not believe that is in the interests of voters nor is it necessary. We have said all along that in creating a register it should only have information which is either necessary or highly relevant and it should only be used for the explicit purposes for which it was created. In this case that is the holding of a federal general election or alternatively, the holding of other elections in other parts of the country where there

is co-operation with provincial, municipal and school board elections authorities.

This particular provision in the bill goes entirely against that. This provision basically says that the purpose of a register is not just for elections but for the ongoing political use by registered parties and sitting members of Parliament. It seems to me that is not appropriate. Certainly under the act there are uses for which this list is prescribed, but if there is wide circulation of these lists, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they will be used for all kinds of purposes, both political and non-political.

An additional concern is why should this additional information be provided to incumbents? In several cases when we had discussions in committee-and I will not quote members by name because these were in camera discussions-we repeatedly raised our concerns with several elements of Bill C-63. A number of members repeatedly said that as an incumbent this information was useful to them which seemed to us, in the case of particular MPs and in the case of the government, to be missing the point.

The point is that the purpose of an elections list is not to provide proprietary information or give advantages to incumbents. That is not the purpose. In Reform's view, the provision of a list out of the register to MPs or to registered political parties every year is improper. That is not the purpose of the list.

The permanent register should help to provide lists for the purposes of elections at all levels of government across the country, not to political parties and not to MPs. Sitting MPs and political parties already have some of this data from previous elections and they can get it elsewhere. The purpose of this list is not for their general political marketing activities. It is important to make that point.

As the member for Bellechasse mentioned, both he and I have proposed motions dealing with a very similar subject. Reform Motions No. 8 and No. 12 and Bloc Motion No. 11 would allow the chief electoral officer of Canada to use elections lists from other registers that may exist in the country for the immediate purposes of avoiding a pre-election enumeration across the country which would be very costly.

I could go on at some length on this point. The particular approach in implementing this bill, having a pre-election enumeration before the next election to implement the shortened electoral period, is a quick way to start the register but potentially it is very expensive. The Reform Party has had some concerns about this. We suggested in committee that the government find ways of using recent enumerations or other electoral records as a way of avoiding a coast to coast enumeration.

The government did agree to some amendments in committee which would require the chief electoral officer to use lists where the enumeration has been conducted within the last year. In the case of Alberta and Prince Edward Island we will probably not be having pre-election enumerations in those provinces. There is an enumeration under way in Alberta as we speak. That represents a saving.

However the big provinces that are not captured by that amendment are Quebec and British Columbia. Quebec and British Columbia are developing permanent voters registers. The one in B.C. is in place and the one in Quebec will be in place soon. If they could be used prior to the next election for the purposes of assembling the register, it would obviously save an enormous amount of money. These are the second and third largest provinces. Together we are talking about roughly one-third of all the ridings in the country. It would be a very significant adjustment if this could be made.

All the Reform Party and Bloc amendments would allow would be for the chief electoral officer to have the option of using those lists. That option is not provided in the bill now. It is true, as many on the government side have pointed out, that there are some technical problems with incorporating these lists. It is also true that in the time frame the government has given itself, which is the end of April, it would be impossible to use those lists, certainly in the case of Quebec.

What that tells us is that the government should be rethinking this approach. It should be looking at an approach which at least allows these lists to be used in the first place by the chief electoral officer and then looking at the time line, not bringing this system in until later in the year in a way that would allow the technical obstacles to be overcome. The cost saving would be absolutely enormous.

It would also be far more consistent with the scenarios that were originally laid out before the procedure and House affairs committee when draft legislation on this subject was first reviewed. It is important to point out that when the government originally came to the Reform Party and to the other opposition parties with the proposal for a 36 day campaign, the scenarios it laid out did not foresee the implementation of a 36 day campaign and a permanent register until at least a year after the legislation had been adopted.

The scenario presented to us in this bill came about at the last minute. We only became aware of it after the bill was tabled in the House. The scenario here is very different from the scenario we agreed to.

I understand why the government wants to hurry this process. However, in hurrying this process and with the particular constraints it has provided for itself, the government has created a situation where the implementation will actually be significantly more costly at the outset rather than saving money. We know there are savings in the long run but we can minimize the initial costs by proceeding in a way that captures every province that can be captured. Obviously if we do it in April we will not capture British Columbia or Quebec. If we do it later, we have that option.

In any case, the bill should be amended so that the chief electoral officer at least has the option of considering usage of those lists if circumstances are fortuitous for him.

The Bloc Quebecois amendment differs from our amendment in one respect which I think was already mentioned by the hon. member for Bellechasse. The difference is that the Bloc amendment has a somewhat more constraining tone to it on the chief electoral officer than ours. I believe that to be true.

We understand the constraints of the chief electoral officer. He wants to make sure that we pursue implementation of the register with a minimum of risk to the integrity of the voting process and the integrity of the compilation process. We understand that is the case and we support him in that. Therefore, we want to give him a great deal of latitude on this and the Bloc wants to give a little less. Our position on this is somewhat more moderate and I would say in concluding it is because we are such a moderate party at heart.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act, at the report stage and more specifically to Group No. 5 and Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse.

I fully support his motion to the effect that there should be an endeavour to conclude agreements between the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and his provincial counterparts, and especially with Quebec's director general of elections, on the use of lists of electors.

I shall, if I may, add some general comments on this bill. This is my first chance to speak in the debate on Bill C-63.

The bill will make it possible to establish a permanent register of electors and would set the minimum duration of a federal election campaign at 36 days. The computerized register of electors will be established from information collected by means of an enumeration held outside of an electoral period, probably in the spring of 1997.

A preliminary list will be distributed within five days of issuing the writ for the next election. The lists will be used in other, subsequent consultations. The election campaign will therefore last a minimum of 36 days instead of 47, which is the case today.

Let us take a brief look at the history of the federal electoral legislation we are about to amend. On October 27, 1964, the federal government appointed an advisory committee headed by Alphonse Barbeau, with a mandate to inquire into the limitation and control of election expenses incurred during federal elections.

In its report, the Barbeau committee recommended as follows: one, political parties should be legally recognized; two, a degree of financial equality should be established among candidates and among political parties; three, an effort should be made to increase public participation in politics through tax concessions to donors; four, costs of election campaigns should be reduced, by shortening the campaign period, by placing limitations on expenditures by candidates and parties, and by prohibiting the payment of poll workers on election day; five, public confidence in political financing should be strengthened, by requiring candidates and parties to disclose their incomes and expenditures; six, a registry should be established to audit and publish the financial reports required, and to enforce the provisions of the proposed "Election and Political Finances Act"; seven, miscellaneous amendments to broadcasting legislation should be enacted to improve the political communications field.

These recommendations were implemented at the time of the reform of the electoral act in 1974, which included the following basic principles: first, a limitation of candidates' expenses; second, the publication of contributions to and the expenses of all political parties; third, the encouragement of individuals' participation through the according of tax credits for political contributions and government funding of political parties. These fundamental principles continue to underlie the federal electoral act and remain in effect.

At the end of the 1980s, the Conservative government set up the Lortie commission to review the Canada Elections Act. In its 1991 report, the commission refused to go along with the real and truly democratic funding of political parties.

Current federal regulations do not cover nomination campaigns, leadership campaigns, candidates' political activities prior to elections, party trust funds, most riding association activities and the activities of interest groups during campaigns.

Big business is the major contributor to the traditional political parties and has the greatest influence on government.

I have here a list of contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada's campaign fund in 1993. The list of contributors includes all the major companies and banks in Canada. The Bank of Montreal, for example, contributed $94,000; the Royal Bank, $88,000; the Toronto Dominion Bank, $80,000; SCN-Lavalin, $73,000; Bombardier, $49,994; Labatt, $62,000; Air Canada, $30,000; Nova Corporation of Alberta, $50,000, and so forth.

This really shows the influence of companies on policies of a government, of a political party. Today, the Liberal Party is funded in large part by big business, by the major banks, in Canada, and cannot therefore act in the interests of ordinary people, being too much influenced already by these political contributions.

Passed in 1977, under Premier René Lévesque, the Quebec Elections Bill provides that only an individual, not a company, can make a contribution. This legislation eliminates the political influence that some vested interest groups could have. Obviously, the objectives of those vested interest groups are more to change the thrust of public policy than to allow a political party whose ideology is close to that of a member of those groups to get into power, to stay in power.

The Quebec Elections Bill limits contributions to $3,000 per year, per elector. It is the director general of elections of Quebec who monitors the election expenses of political parties. Also, the official representative of each party must file a yearly financial report with the director general. This report is in the public domain.

Bill C-63 draws on the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, that is the Lortie Commission. This bill also draws on the recommendations of the chief electoral officer of Canada.

The permanent list of electors will abolish the need for the door to door census we previously had to do before each election. Thanks to that list, and the shorter electoral period, the country will save $30 million on each election.

Finally I would like to say I condemn the government for resorting to patronage when dealing with the election of the returning officers. Nearly all the officers have been replaced in Quebec, even though the chief electoral officer had said some of the returning officers should stay.

Once again, I suggest that these returning officers should be appointed by the chief electoral officer, following a competition, just like public servants. For all those reasons, I have some great reservations about Bill C-63 and I think I will vote against it.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting things in coming to this House is taking a look at the amount of discussion there is over issues that on the surface would appear to be rather arcane, even bordering on meaningless. Certainly those who may be watching this on TV would ask why members are going on and on about the elections act and all of its details.

In fact this bill is possibly one of the most important bills that the House will consider. After all, we live in a democracy. The democratic process is one in which the people of any country have the opportunity to choose those who are going to be representing them, their views and their wishes, in a Chamber such as this where the laws the land will be enacted and some will be repealed. This place should reflect the values of Canada. That is what this Chamber is all about.

If we do not take great care and if we do not have great precision in the way we construct the way in which members of this Chamber will be elected to represent the people of Canada, then we end up with things out of balance. We then end up with things in our society that simply cannot be changed because there is a higher power than this Chamber. And indeed there should never be.

In parenthesis I think of the situation in Belarus at this moment, where it is my understanding that the president of that country who was elected two years ago, has been requesting, demanding in fact, and is holding a referendum on whether he should be given more and more autocratic power which of course is the exact opposite of what a democracy is all about.

We took time, care and precision on coming to this bill. I have been encouraged by the reports I have received from the member for Calgary North who is very capably representing the point of view of our party in this debate. I have been encouraged by him to understand that there are provisions which we have proposed in goodwill to the government and that the government, as we speak, is giving serious consideration to supporting those amendments that would improve the bill.

In a previous intervention I said that we spend a lot of time in the House and sometimes end up in very aggressive partisan positions. The bill should reflect less partisanship and what we consider to be the best interests of the people of Canada.

Reform Motion No. 13 would delete the part of Bill C-63 that provides for the annual provision of voters' lists to MPs and parties. The Reform Party do not believe this is in the best interests of or for the benefit of the voters.

I draw the attention of the House to this because it seems to me that the purpose of and the use of voters' lists are very restricted. To step outside of those prescribed uses is an illegal act. Unless someone is going to break the law and step outside the prescribed purposes of the list, what would the value of the lists be?

I am not looking at it so much from the point of view of the cost of the preparation and distribution of the lists, which would probably be in the millions of dollars and is an important issue. I am more concerned about the actual value of those lists. If they are going to be provided to MPs and their parties, what is the actual value of the lists if they are not going to be used to the advantage of the incumbents, or at the very least, as a marketing tool for the political parties? I ask what is the relevance of these lists?

I have said that I do not want to be partisan, but again I am going to step away from that for a second. Being the heritage critic I am familiar with what is presently going on in the distribution of the flags under the encouragement of the heritage minister. It has been particularly interesting the number of people who have contacted my office knowing that my party is concerned about the fact that there will be approximately $23 million spent on the distribution of these flags all across Canada. People have recognized that it is a touchy, feel good thing by the heritage minister that will not accomplish anything. However, some things have been happening that have given me cause for concern.

When the heritage minister was trying to authenticate the reasons why the Reforms members who had helped their constituents get flags was doing an awful thing, she would stand in the House and recite on a riding by riding basis how many flags went to a given riding. If the heritage department can prepare lists on a riding by riding basis, surely that list in turn can give the name and address of where a flag was shipped.

If that information can appear in the heritage minister's hands, it could undoubtedly appear on the desk of any member of Parliament. Presumably the people who would be most interested in this initiative would be Liberal MPs. That gives us an idea of how quickly this information could potentially be misused when the government of the day uses the Canadian flag as a tool to get a list of people. The documents going out to those people are signed by members of Parliament. Of course, the individuals who ordered the flags have never or seldom been in contact with those members of Parliament.

With respect to motion No. 13 I ask the question of Liberal members: Although we know that the provisions of the bill purposely restrict the use of the names and the information on the list and although we know that the breaking of those restrictions is an illegal act, would we not be safe in assuming that someone somewhere would end up using that list for purposes that are outside the prescribed uses of the list?

I ask the people of Canada to think about this. If that list is going to be circulated to incumbent members of Parliament and to parties between elections and, supposedly, those people are not supposed to be using the list, then why are we doing it? What is the purpose of doing it in the first place?

Motion No. 12 would permit the use of existing permanent voters' lists in B.C. and Quebec. Again we look at the timeframe issue which the hon. member for Calgary West mentioned.

The government, for reasons best known to itself, has decided to accelerate this process. It allowed only two weeks for this bill to be in committee. The House was not sitting during one of those weeks. That gives us the idea that maybe there is an agenda.

If we permit the use of existing voters' lists in B.C. and Quebec, which would reflect, as my colleague has said, one-third of the electors of the country, even if we could not meet the arbitrary deadline that has been established by the Liberals to rush Bill C-63 through, with the acceptance of motion No. 12 the expanded timeframe would give Elections Canada the opportunity to become involved in saving a tremendous amount of money by merging the two lists. It only makes sense to merge the lists, not only at the federal level but also at the provincial, municipal and regional district levels.

Motion No. 11 was proposed by the Bloc. That motion is very similar to our motion No. 12 which I just described. The difference is that it would call for the mandatory use of these lists. We are proposing that there be more discretion permitted on the part of the federal electoral officer.

I appreciate the opportunity to be able to make these interventions. For the people who are interested in this debate, I hope they realize that as we grind our way through, this is a very important bill which has to do with the very foundation of our democratic process in Canada.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to congratulate the Bloc Quebecois member, the member for Bellechasse, for his excellent job on the committee that reviewed the bill.

I think the member for Bellechasse did his very best to improve the bill, to bring it up to par with the elections bill we have had in Quebec for several years now, which provides for a fairer and level playing field when election time comes around.

The member for Bellechasse attempted to show that the time had come for the government to modernize this act. The time had come to have a less costly act, an act putting a limit on the political

influence some pressure groups have on the government. The time had come-I would like everyone to listen because this is very important-for the government to put a ceiling on contributions. The time had come to demand more transparency. Unfortunately, we see none of that in the bill.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government opposite made no change whatsoever. As always, it has hung on to its bad old habits. This means that corporations will still be allowed to contribute thousands of dollars. Pressure groups will also be allowed to contribute money. After the elections, they will have their hands tied, as is usually the case in these parts.

There is this old saying the Bloc Quebecois likes to quote: "Tell me who is funding you and I will tell you who you work for". Unfortunately when a company contributes, as mentioned earlier-the member for Bourassa listed the companies that contributed $50,000 and $60,000 to the Liberal government opposite-obviously it expects something in return. This might be why, from time to time, we end up with policies which make no sense whatsoever.

This might be why the government adopts policies benefitting pressure groups, as was clearly the case with the Pearson deal. Regularly, in this place, we ask ourselves the following question: "What does it mean when the government proposes such things?" Perhaps we should check to see if a stockholder or a person who holds some position in the lobby group has given or is still giving large amounts of money to the Liberal government so that it can govern the way that group wishes. This is rather appalling in a democratic system.

The government had an opportunity to bring about some changes in this regard, to put more transparency in this. But no, it failed again. The government had an opportunity to give some meaning to a certain motion on distinct society that was passed in this House, and, in that piece of legislation, to give Quebec some additional powers.

I know that, in the group of motions we are now examining, there is the whole issue of "residence" and "domicile". For the information of the Speaker and our viewers, I will read the motion that was tabled on November 29, 1995 by the Prime Minister himself. We are about to celebrate the first anniversary of that motion. It will not be a celebration for us, Quebecers, but only a date to forget as quickly as possible. I want you to be aware that, since that date, November 29, 1995, nothing has changed. The Liberal government is not even able to draft a piece of legislation that would be quite easy to prepare to give more power to Quebec, in connection with the motion that was passed.

That motion read as follows:

Whereas the People of Quebec have expressed the desire for recognition of Quebec's distinct society;

(1) the House recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada;

(2) the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;

This is extremely important for what I will be saying now.

(3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;

(4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.

This means that in a piece of legislation similar to the one before us, this motion was worth something. If the government motion tabled on November 29, 1995, meant anything, some of its key elements should be reflected in Bill C-63 we are now debating. Most importantly, if Quebec's distinct status was indeed recognized, it would have been recognized in this bill by providing, among other things, for a minimum 25 per cent representation for Quebec, but there is no such thing in there.

As for the specific group of motions we are considering, its effect on the bill would be to explicitly recognize the fact that, in civil law, the concept of residence has no meaning. The bill would state that, in Quebec, the place of residence would be referred to as suggested by the hon. member for Bellechasse in his proposed amendment. The words "she is ordinarily resident" could be replaced with "she is domiciled and to vote at the" local polling station. I think this would be a minor change, a very small thing really.

If the government stood by its own position and the motion to recognize Quebec as a distinct society meant anything, the official opposition, represented by a Bloc member, would not have had to impress this upon the government. The government would have automatically acted in accordance with civil law, as clearly stated in the motion, which insists that organizations act this way.

But instead, a very important aspect of Quebec's civil law, the concept of domicile or place of residence, is ignored. I hope the government understands. I hope they will have second thoughts about this amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, although this seldom happens in the House, and eventually decide to vote for the amendment so that the word "domicile" can be used, making this the main point to consider in clause 6 of Bill C-63 amending section 53 of the Canada Elections Act.

I could argue on and on about this. I will limit my comments to the group of motions before us, Group No. 5. Another major point is the permanent voters list. To effect savings, why not provide in the bill some mechanism allowing the use of the permanent list

maintained by Quebec and other provinces, as proposed by the hon. member for Bellechasse in Motion No. 11?

Why have federal officials create a whole new list when Quebec already has one. Quebec has paid for this work to be done. I do not accept that it is not up to date. If my information is correct, it will be on May 1. In any case, the federal government will not start work on its own list before April. We could wait for the permanent list from Quebec and other provinces where such a mechanism exists.

Just think of the money we would save. The Minister of Finance is trying to save billions in welfare and unemployment costs. This is an ideal way to save money by capitalizing on work already done, and excellently done as far as Quebec's director general of elections is concerned.

Why not accommodate this request from the official opposition? It is very simple, there are only two minor amendments. If the government wanted to be sincere in its sincere approach, and to give effect to certain things it has already passed, it would give in and approve the amendments moved by my colleague from Bellechasse.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak again on amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

In this group of amendments there are two basic principles that we are talking about; first, the principle of utilizing voters lists at the provincial level and permanent lists which are available to us so that we can better identify the constituents who would be on the federal list. The idea here is certainly the cost savings that would come about because of that.

The second principle we are looking at is the matter of whether we should provide voters lists to constituencies on an annual basis. We ask why we should do that.

The Reform Party has moved an amendment saying that there does not seem to be a good purpose and therefore we should eliminate this provision in the act as suggested by the government for annual distribution of updated voters lists to the registered political parties.

In terms of the B.C. and Quebec voters lists that could be available and may be available so that they can be used as the federal list, we should think first of all of the savings that could occur. If we look at the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta and Prince Edward Island, just those four lists, some 45 per cent of Canadian voters would be on a voters list if we used the current lists that are available at the provincial level.

The committee that studied this, and this comes as well from the electoral officer, said that if we had a permanent voters list in Canada we would save something like $14 million. So we are looking at the subsequent election, the one after the one in the spring of 1997, to save $14 million.

If we could use the lists from the provinces of British Columbia, Quebec, Alberta and Prince Edward Island, about 45 per cent of the population of Canada, we could save 45 per cent of $14 million in the upcoming election, in the 1997 election.

We have said a number of times in this House that is most likely when the government is going to call the election. It should tell us about that rather than keep hiding it. It should tell us that in the spring of 1997 there will be an election and then we would all be able to prepare accordingly. There could be a saving over $10 million if those four lists were used.

After a presentation by my colleague from Calgary, the government has agreed to use the lists from Alberta and Prince Edward Island. Now we are saying let us add two more, from British Columbia and Quebec, and do everything we can to make sure those are added to the permanent voters list of Canada. Look at the savings. I think that in itself would merit the support of the House of Commons for the amendment as suggested.

I think that is the strongest argument. The information is available. Why not use it accordingly?

If we look at the other amendment before us in terms of the voters list being distributed annually, I in my greatest imagination cannot understand why the government would want to facilitate the distribution of a voters list annually to all the constituencies in Canada and as well to every registered political party across this nation. What good use is there for that list in the years between one election and the next? Its primary purpose is to list people who are eligible to vote in an election.

We all know that during an election period candidates use the list for campaign purposes. That is legitimate. It is used in a variety of creative ways to communicate with voters encouraging them to support one party and not to support the other parties in the race. That is what it is all about.

Candidates have to communicate with the voters in some format. Some candidates have the facility and the time to phone thousands through the voters' lists. During that period the candidate is able to make the calls that are necessary and communicate their attitudes and their ideas. That is for a good and reasonable purpose.

What about in between an election date and the dropping of the subsequent writ? What could happen during that period of time? It is true we could have these election lists available to all political parties. The Reform, Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive Conservatives, if they have adequate people to do this, could do mail outs from the lists.

What is the purpose and why would this list be provided at thousands and thousands of dollars in cost? I know from practical experience over the years most of the lists would sit on the shelf and never be used at all. Out of the some 301 seats that will exist in Parliament after the next election, I am sure if one constituency out of the 301 uses the lists in between elections in any practical way or any way that is of value to the constituents that would be a miracle in itself. I do not see that at all.

If a constituency could come up with a good reason to use the list between the election date and the dropping of the next writ then I suggest that rather than produce these lists in a mass way that we should look at an option. The option is that a member, having some desire to use the list annually to communicate with his or her constituents, put money up front and pay the basic cost for the production of that list.

If it costs the Elections Canada office $1,000, $2,000, $5,000 or whatever the cost to produce the list, it should be done at cost. Elections Canada should not make a profit. Then that member should send a cheque to Elections Canada and say why and for what purpose that member would like a list of electors. The member could enclose a cheque for $1,000 or $5,000, whatever is established by Elections Canada. Elections Canada could transfer either the list or software to the member of Parliament at that point. I believe that would be adequate and look after some special need that I cannot think of at the present time. That would certainly serve the purpose.

Failing to amend the legislation in that light, if the government just leaves it as it is at the present where it says every year we turn the crank and an updated list is sent to every constituency in Canada, to me that is not good enough. I would have to vote against that kind of provision in the act. We should deal with the issue now. We should amend it so that no lists are provided between the date of the election and the dropping of the next writ, or we should make a provision in the act whereby a constituency, if necessary, can cite a good reason and purchase the list at cost from Elections Canada. That would satisfy the need of those kinds of persons.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been listening with great interest to certain aspects of this debate. It might be helpful to put a few of my points of view on the record, particularly to let my colleagues in the opposition know that there is still some interest in some of the issues they have raised.

Things are not cast in stone. They obviously are not black and white. We are trying to develop a consensus. We continue to welcome the interventions of both opposition parties, particularly by the members who participated in the debate at the committee stage.

In principle I have a great deal of sympathy for the point of view expressed by my colleague from Calgary West relating to the byelection campaign period. There may be some way to make some accommodation on that matter as the days progress. I note that byelections are covered by the Parliament of Canada Act, not this act as my hon. colleague knows. That act is not being debated at the moment.

The motion in the name of my colleague from Bellechasse in this group talks about the concept of domicile. As my hon. colleague knows, the concept of domicile is not found in the Canada Elections Act. The entitlement to vote in a federal election is in part based on the fact of being ordinarily resident in a polling division. The term ordinary resident is fully defined in sections 56 to 62 of the Canada Elections Act.

I was pleased to hear several members opposite say that in principle they supported the establishment of a register. All parties have had a consensus that a register makes a lot of sense for a modern Canadian democracy that is evolving. It is a much more efficient way and a cost effective way. I hope over the course of several electoral events that dozens or tens of millions of dollars will be saved by the establishment of a registry.

I listened with great interest to the comments made by the House leader for the Reform Party. It is important for the record to show that the reason the Alberta and Prince Edward Island lists were considered to be more consistent with this legislation was based on the freshness of information that was coming from both of those electoral districts.

It is important to remember that while the British Columbia and Quebec lists may very well work, unfortunately due to the time frame of when this bill would come into force, presuming it receives approval in the other place, the information that would be on the British Columbia and Quebec lists would not be as fresh. The best information when the officials were at the procedure and House affairs committee was that the quality of the information would be less than perfect.

It was for that reason the government felt that the Alberta list and the Prince Edward Island list would be appropriate. It is not inconsistent to establish a federal registry by using provincial lists. I have agreed with that point of view all along. There can be some significant cost savings at the provincial level and even at the municipal level, depending on which region of the country is able to use the federal registry.

We want to build the first federal register with the most current voter information. This is why we will only use provincial lists that have been completed through a door to door enumeration within the last 12 months of the date of the last federal enumeration.

Therefore, while I understand the points of view that have been raised by my hon. colleagues, for the record I wanted to draw that to everyone's attention.

Motion No. 9, moved my hon. colleague from Bellechasse, makes it mandatory for incarcerated electors to provide their names, sex and date of birth. It is important to acknowledge that in Canada we have a system of voluntary registration. Bill C-63 is based on the principle that electors voluntarily would provide that information. Therefore, there is no mandatory obligation to provide that in the bill. I want to offer that comment to the motion of my hon. colleague.

Motion No. 10 is moved by the hon. member for Calgary West. Once again I want to draw the House's attention to the fact that the privacy commissioner and the chief electoral officer have informed the procedure and House affairs committee that gender information is useful as an administrative identifier for electors who have names that are common to both sexes. Obviously in French and English we can all think of names that may be somewhat confusing from a gender point of view.

It is also important to mention that the privacy commissioner did not see the voluntary collection of privacy information as a significant issue as it relates to gender and did not recommend it.

My hon. colleague from Kootenay East has made a very strong case for that. Again, at this point in the day, I want to acknowledge the points of view that he has raised, particularly as it relates to the security and privacy of women. No one would argue with the member for Kootenay East due to his size or his sex, but other people may feel a little intimidated. However, I want to tell my hon. colleague that we have been listening very carefully and if there are ways that we can consider some accommodation we are still open to it at this point.

The maintenance of the federal registry is something that I believe is also contained in Motions Nos. 12 and 13. The use of the federal list is also contained there. I want to once again remind my hon. colleagues that what we are trying to do with this legislation is to ensure that Canadians have the most modern and most current information before them. The best information, as it has been presented by the officials at Elections Canada, is information that is brought forward on a 12-month basis.

Therefore, it is not to try to prejudice any particular group in the country. I notice that both British Columbia and Quebec would find their lists not as current as Alberta and Prince Edward Island. It was for that reason that the government moved in that direction.

I believe that sums up some of the comments I wish to contribute to the debate. I thank my hon. colleagues and ask for their patience as the days move forward on this important matter, amendments to Bill C-63.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, unless I am mistaken, the list in question will not be used for the next election, but for the following one, which is a number of years away, probably seven or so.

The feeling of urgency expressed by the member opposite makes me wonder somewhat. It is as though he wants to justify the fact that election lists made by the provinces, including the state of Quebec, are not being used. The member sounds like he wants to eliminate or avoid the use of these lists when he says that they will not be ready for the next election. However, this is not the issue. This is not the object of the legislation before us. We are talking seven years down the road.

In all fairness, the hon. member opposite should consider using provincial lists to ensure a better use of public moneys. We keep talking about avoiding duplication. Here is an excellent opportunity to do things right, because we have the time to do so. We have several years ahead of us to set up a fair system.

You will agree with me that this is not a list that Quebec will be able to use in the context of a federal election, given that, seven years from now, our province will likely have become a sovereign state. Still, the arguments raised by Reform Party members make sense. Indeed, whether we are talking about the Canada of today or the Canada of tomorrow, it makes sense to make better use of public moneys. Therefore, we should immediately start planning to use provincial lists.

This brings me to make a comment. You will recall that, in Quebec, we experienced certain problems. For example, on a number of occasions, residents from another province voted in Quebec by using their secondary residence, a cottage or what have you, or some other scheme.

If there was only one list and only one source of data within each province, this kind of double residency status that allows a person to vote in two different jurisdictions would no longer exist. I imagine that if these things happen in Quebec with out of the province residents, they must also occur in other provinces.

So, while the issue of a single list is first and foremost a matter of making good use of public moneys, it also ensures having reliable information. With two lists and two sets of data, consistency will be a challenge. But if we have only one list and specified, well identified data sources, a higher level of integrity will be possible, and it will be that much easier to monitor and maintain that integrity in our list.

It is a better solution from all points of view. Not only costs will reduced, but we will also have a better quality list. The process the government party is suggesting has two flaws.

Expenses will be duplicated. Surely, we cannot afford to spend money we do not have, especially if expenses are duplicated. Furthermore we will end up with lists whose integrity will never be assured. In fact we are quite certain their integrity will not be adequate. Comparisons will be made between both lists and inconsistencies will remain.

In this House today, we have an opportunity to implement a smarter process that will save taxpayer dollars. The Canadian list will be made up from provincial lists, and the level of integrity will be extremely high.

I repeat that Quebec will probably never have to use such a list, but I think that, at this time, this is what should be done out of respect for taxpayers who pay for government operations. This is a golden opportunity to use cautiously taxpayer dollars, reduce costs, and in the process, get more for our money. Opposition parties are fully playing their role of looking after the public interest.

I cannot understand why the government party seems to think or rather insists that provincial guarantees are inadequate. It is deliberately ignoring better solutions, and refusing co-operation and a better use of taxpayer dollars.

I cannot understand why. It is really strange. You will pardon my persistence, but I will ask once more the government party to reconsider. This list will be used seven years from now. It seems to me we have all the time we need to do things correctly, and I cannot understand why we should not do it. In conclusion, I hope the wisdom that prevails in opposition parties will also prevail in the government party.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The question is on Motion No. 7, group 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 8. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 12.

The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.