Debates of Nov. 26th, 1996

Canada Elections Act

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

They can cost $1,200 a plate.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

My colleague, the member for Trois-Rivières, who knows all about political party financing and who gets his financing through the sale of membership cards and small donations from people in his riding to maintain his freedom of action-democratic behaviour that does him credit-says that these receptions can cost as much as $1,200 a plate.

Do you not think that the 600 or 700 guests who paid $1,200 a plate to hear the Prime Minister and the corporations that bought 10, 15, 20, 30 or 100 tickets could greatly influence the government agenda afterwards? We understand why they do not want to give family trusts a closer look.

Let us recall what openness is all about. I would like to quote from statements I made on the subject when I moved a motion in favour of public funding for all political parties.

At that time, I said that, under section 121 of the Criminal Code, donations aimed at obtaining special privileges are illegal in Canada. In fact, that section is directed at those who give money to political parties with the specific aim of getting government contracts. Subsection 121(2) reads:

(2) Every one commits an offence who, in order to obtain or retain a contract with the government, or as a term of any such contract, whether express or implied, directly or indirectly subscribes or gives, or agrees to subscribe or give, to any person any valuable consideration: (a) for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate or a class or party of candidates to Parliament or the legislature of a province; or (b) with intent to influence or affect in any way the result of an election conducted for the purpose of electing persons to serve in Parliament or the legislature of a province.

It is clear that, as far as openness is concerned, the Criminal Code is very demanding of members of Parliament. But, from all appearances, the Liberal government is not ready to abide by the spirit of the Criminal Code.

Canadians and Quebecers demand total openness from their elected representatives. Greed is probably very human, but it is incompatible with the political ideal of common good. In this regard, the role of government is to discourage any political practice allowing public office holders to use their positions for personal gain.

That is something the government should reflect on and include in this electoral reform.

Whether in cases of lobbying, patronage or conflict of interest, we have often been informed by the media that people had sought to influence those in charge of the public purse to gain a personal advantage for themselves or for the people they represent. Money is generally the main factor in these situations. As long as a large percentage of political party funding will come from corporate or union sources, ordinary Canadians will have every reason to wonder who we serve.

Can the worker from my riding who barely earns $15,000 a year seriously believe that an engineering firm, a large bank or a businessman will donate $50,000 to a political party without hoping to get a return on their investment? Can he seriously think that he will carry as much weight as this engineering firm in the decision making process? One simply has to ask the question to know the answer.

Corporate entities are always created for a specific purpose: for-profit organizations are there to make profits; non-profit organizations have very specific objectives; and unions are there to promote the interests of their members in the workplace.

When these organizations fund a political party, they stray considerably from the purposes for which they were originally created under federal or provincial laws. Those who refuse to see that these donations are not completely unselfish are really hiding their heads in the sand.

And how about the big fundraisers? Smoke and mirrors is often the answer. Good contacts in the business community eventually provide access to the holy of holies or may open the door to financial benefit.

Public funding of political parties would send a clear message of transparency and would show unequivocally that companies, unions and major financial backers no longer have an excessive amount of influence on the decision making process. This notion of transparency should have been included in this electoral reform.

Democratically speaking, as well, if there were public funding, if only those entitled to vote were allowed to contribute to a political party, thus eliminating any corporations, unions or non-profit organizations, we would take a large step towards better democracy. Not only is public funding an initiative linked to transparency, but it is also a message of democracy from the voters.

Companies, associations and unions do not vote. There is therefore no reason why these organizations should play a preponderant role in our electoral and political system by funding more than 25 per cent of the activities of Canadian political parties. In certain parties, it is over 40 per cent.

Public funding is also a question of democracy. Voters are the ones who should control our electoral system, who are the very foundation of our democracy. This control must be exercised at all stages of the democratic process, requiring real participation by the public, but also requiring a decentralization of structures and decision making within political parties.

Obviously it is easier for party fundraisers to obtain one $5,000 contribution than many $50 contributions, but the fact that it is easier, not to say lazier, results in very centralized parties, where ordinary members feel out of place. By giving in to laziness, political parties are agreeing to serve corporate contributors, thus abandoning thousands of Canadians and Quebecers who have contributed, who have wanted to join their party, but who no longer have any influence.

Large donations make things simpler, but certainly less democratic. When, year after year, a political party makes a point of seeking contributions from voters, it shows that it needs them and commits itself to getting to know them and to consulting them on its major policies. The party membership is therefore given a much more important role and does not just work on winning an election every four years, with the result that democracy is exercised on an ongoing basis within each of the parties.

Through public funding, a contributor acquires an increased sense of belonging to his party, that can only increase with the democratic vigour of a society. The great virtue of public funding is that it forces political parties to increase decentralization of their structure, to return to their roots and to promote genuine interaction between the leaders and the membership. It is for these reasons that public funding should have been included in this electoral reform.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

The hon. member made a comment with regard to who should be able to make a contribution and who should not. He indicated that those who vote could make a contribution and those who do not vote should not be able under the legislation to make a contribution to a political party or a candidate in a respective election.

I would like the hon. member to clarify that point. I do not think he was saying to us, although it sounded that way, that a person would have to vote in order to qualify to make a contribution. I do not think that was the intent of the hon. member. If it was, I would feel rather disappointed because it would take away a certain freedom from individuals. If one wishes to vote, okay. If not, no.

If there were a distinction between corporate entities and individuals, that would be something different.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to clarify. It seemed obvious to me. Everyone is entitled to vote, and there is no question of paying for the right to vote; I never said such a thing.

In order to have a more viable democracy, I said that the political parties should be funded only by those who are entitled to vote. I never referred to paying for the right to vote.

I said that companies ought not to have the right to contribute to a political party, nor corporations, nor unions, nor not for profit organizations, only individuals who are entitled to vote, in other words I am eliminating corporate entities. In Quebec, companies, unions and not for profit organizations have not been allowed to contribute to a political party since 1977, only individuals who are entitled to vote. The ordinary citizen can contribute. This greatly improves democracy, while at the same time greatly reducing the influence of corporations, who have been heavy contributors to a political party, over that party once it is elected.

The provincial Liberals and the Parti Quebecois get their funding in this way, and the Bloc Quebecois sitting here in this House was also funded in this way in the last election, in 1993. It refused all contributions from companies, labour unions or not for profit organizations, accepting them only from individuals entitled to vote. This is how it is funded every year.

Our fundraising campaign this year met its $1 million objective in six months; last year, during the referendum, the objective was $1.8 million. The list of contributors is made known, and only individuals with the right to vote are allowed to contribute to the party.

This is the reform we are suggesting, and we think that the government ought to have included it in its bill. This would have made a major contribution to cleaning up politics. The government would not then have had the problem of ministers in conflict of

interest, as we have just experienced with three different ministers here, and with a number of ministers during the Conservative days.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the member because of his longstanding experience as a politician. I want to make it perfectly clear that this is not a trick question. I want some input from a person who has been involved in the political process for a long time.

One concern I have as a member from British Columbia is what the Liberals have done in terms or responding to a perception, thereby creating more of a problem than there was in the first place. In fact, there was no problem. That is with respect to the fact that in Alberta, in the mountain time zone at least, the polls will be closing at 7.30 p.m., and in the Pacific time zone they will be closing at 7 p.m.

The major concern I have is the government responded to the member for Vancouver East and some of the things that have been popular in the press about the fact that people in western Canada are concerned that the vote is all over before they even start to count their ballots, which of course is nothing but a problem of perception. In trying to resolve this problem of perception, they are now going to be closing the polls in a metropolitan Vancouver, where many people are travelling for an hour or an hour and a half from work, arriving home at 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. before getting out to vote.

This member has been a politician for an extended period of time. Would he agree with me that what is going to happen, particularly in Vancouver, is people who are working for candidates and who have the ability to telephone people to try to get them out, this is going to be a severe detriment and problem for many of the people involved in the political process? It is going to be a different situation in politics in Vancouver than it will be in Toronto or Montreal because of that time change. It is a very unfair change. I wonder if the member would care to comment on that.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member that I fully share his concerns. I believe that the first aim of any electoral reform should be to make voting more accessible. If we shorten the opening hours of polling stations in Vancouver or in British Columbia, democracy will suffer.

Workers who work fixed hours and who have to check in and out will not have enough time to vote while others who can more easily leave work will be able to vote. There is an injustice in terms of accessibility. I believe, like you, that voting accessibility is more important than knowing election results in another province.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the hon. member for Richelieu on his excellent speech, especially the part on political party funding and his criticism of contributions made by large corporations to the traditional parties, including the Liberal Party.

I have a few figures, some examples of the incredible amounts contributed to the Liberal Party of Canada during the 1993 election campaign by companies such as Canadian Airlines, $9,000; Canadian Pacific, $64,000; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, $86,000; General Electric, $14,000; Bombardier, $45,000; Eaton's, $15,000; Molson, $53,000; Bank of Nova Scotia, $76,000; Canadian Bankers Association, $14,600; B.C. Inc., $52,000. Incredible, the amounts that were given to the Liberal Party in 1993 in the middle of an election campaign. How can a government look after the interests of the average individual when it is financed by Canada's large corporations? Would the hon. member for Richelieu care to comment?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member asked this question. When I looked at political party funding for the 1993 election, I found that corporations like those you just mentioned, and others, such as Burns Fry, Onex Corporation, Molson, Rogers, CanWest Global, Unitel, and drug companies, such as Frosst, Apotex and Magna International, were the main contributors to Liberal Party coffers.

The major contributions you mentioned involved 24 ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, and six parliamentary secretaries who are sitting on the government benches. There are many conclusions we can draw from this.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-63, a bill which can save taxpayers as much as $30 million per federal election.

Changes to the Canada Elections Act cannot be approached haphazardly. The implications are great and the subject matter is indeed critical.

This piece of legislation follows the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, the Lortie commission, and the recommendations of Canada's chief electoral officer. Extensive consultation has taken place with opposition parties and by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Bill C-63 signifies a step forward for our electoral system. It takes advantage of modern information technology and, more important, it makes sense.

The bill proposes the establishment of a permanent voters list, an automated register of Canadians qualified as electors. This permanent automated list would eliminate the need for outdated door to door enumeration. The register will be updated from existing federal, provincial and territorial data resources. This limited personal information will be used only with the consent of the electors involved. The federal statute governing privacy will apply and the transfer of data will be strictly regulated.

The information in the register of electors would be used solely for electoral purposes. Automation of the list will allow more time for electors to make revisions. If an elector's name or address is incorrect on the preliminary list or has been omitted, he or she will have 4 additional days to have the information corrected; 28 days rather than 24. Updating information will be easier. Providing an elector can prove his or her identity, some changes could in fact be made by phone.

The creation of a permanent register of electors will allow the current 47 day minimum election period to be shortened to 36 days. This shortening of the campaign period also responds to a call from Canadians who feel that 47 days is extravagant. The shorter minimum 36 day election calendar will involve major changes to the current 47 day calendar.

Spending limits and the preliminary list of electors will be available earlier. They will now be available to candidates on the 31st day before polling day.

As I have indicated, electors will have more time available for revision; 28 days rather than the existing 24. Electors will receive voting information earlier. Electors will receive a mailed notice confirming the dates and locations of the advance and regular polls by the 24th day before polling day. This way is much safer than the old system. Under the current 47 day calendar notices are left at the door by enumerators.

These changes make perfect sense to me and they are going to save Canadian taxpayers money. Door to door enumeration for each election is time consuming and expensive. Up to 110,000 enumerators have to be hired and trained and their work monitored. Costs are incurred at the federal level and by the provinces, the territories, the municipalities and the school boards which conduct enumerations. The fact is, door to door enumeration is the single most costly part of an election for taxpayers.

The single most costly part of the last election for the Tories was stating that federal elections are neither the time nor the place for debating public policy. Their most costly mistake, one which both they and the Reform Party seem destined to make again, was underestimating the Canadian public's concern about its country's future, its understanding of the issues of the day and its ability to make rational decisions.

One need only look at the Reform Party's false start program to see that this is true. The Reform approach to the economy could actually jeopardize the achievement of a balanced budget in the near future, increase fiscal uncertainty and stall investment and job creation. This sketchy plan is in marked contrast to the measured, proven Liberal government's two-track approach which is already achieving outstanding success.

Under the Liberal government, Canada has the lowest interest rates since the 1950s. That is making a real difference to real people. Someone renewing a one-year mortgage of $100,000 will save over $3,000 annually. Let us be honest, job creation is not and never has been part of the Reform Party's plan. It is only now starting to realize that jobs are the top priority for Canadians. Its platform has no credibility. It just does not add up.

The Reform Party proposes to increase transfers for health and education by $4 billion, allocate $10 billion to repaying the debt and cut taxes by $12 billion. How, one may ask? That is an excellent question and one that Canadian voters will ask come election time. The problem is that the Reform Party cannot answer it.

What we know is that the Reform proposal will make the tax system less fair, benefiting the wealthy at the expense of those less fortunate. Liberals believe that any changes should be targeted and benefit those in need. The Canadian people know this. This is exactly how this country was built.

I am not going to discredit every idea or proposal made in the false start document. Quite frankly, I think our time can be better spent doing other things-

[An hon. member]

Like talking about the bill.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

-for example justice. Someone unfamiliar with Canada who looked through Hansard reading only Reform Party statements about crime, he or she would think we live in one of the most violent countries in the history of civilization. However, we do not.

The fact is that the crime rate fell last year as it has for the past four years. The government took a comprehensive approach to crime and justice and it is paying off. However, those facts seem to elude our friends across the away. After promising to do politics differently, they have resorted to extremism, hot button politics. Canadians are smarter than that.

Then there are the Tories. Some people ask: Where are they? They are here. One would think that after the 1993 election the Tories would have realized they are not in tune with the wants and needs of Canadians, but it is not so. They just carry on doing what they do best, looking after their friends at the expense of others.

The two tiered health care system, an end to new seniors' benefits are the type of approach the Tories plan to take.

Bill C-63 reflects the realities of today. Technology has helped us streamline the electoral process. It will result in savings of $130 million over the next six elections. Also, Canadians today are informed about the issues that affect them. They have the right and ability to express their views and, in my mind, during an election campaign it is the best possible time to do so. When they look at the record of the government I know which way this country is going in the next election.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member who just spoke. I agree we could save $120 million or $130 million, but the maximum could have been higher.

The government could have saved $150 million, in other words, an additional $20 million or $30 million, if it had agreed to use electoral lists prepared in the province of Quebec, for instance. This list, which is quite recent, does not meet the 12-month criteria but only just.

So why do the Liberals not stop their nitpicking and adopt the electoral list that has just been drawn up? This list is pretty recent, in fact so recent it would be impossible to have one more up to date because it takes so long to compile the data.

My question is the following. Is it not just to give Liberal organizers in the ridings a chance to go door to door and fill in the list at 75 cents or $1 a shot, so that the legislation will be used as an excuse to give more money to the friends of the Liberal Party in Canada?

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it may be the impression of the hon. member that this is some kind of cynical political ploy. It is not. Quite frankly, when we are looking at savings of $30 million per election the Canadian taxpayers who, after all, pay for these elections would applaud this move by the federal government.

May I add that in all of the discussions I have had in and outside my riding in the province of Ontario and with members of the Quebec community that people are quite happy we are introducing automation, that we are introducing technology in the election campaign, that we are saving the type of money we are. Over one hundred million dollars is quite a few dollars to save.

Given the fact that Canadians want more and greater accountability for every tax dollar that is invested, whether it is in the electoral process or government programs we will find that this bill has widespread support from British Columbia to Newfoundland. The issue of automation and technology is something about which I am personally quite pleased.

The creation of a permanent voters' list is something that I personally advocated back in 1990 when I was making my contribution as a member of Parliament. I say this with a bit of experience, representing an area with 260,000 people. A permanent voters' list certainly would have benefited myself and the electoral process back in 1988 when I ran for the first time. The people of York North will in large measure support the initiatives that I stated in this bill and that the government has clearly outlined in the legislation.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act, in particular as it pertains to three elements. I would like to address establishing a permanent electoral list, implementing a shorter campaign period and staggering the voting hours across the country.

The first element of the bill deals with the question of a permanent electoral list. I believe that such a list will be better for Canadians because it will eliminate the recurring need to have approximately 100,000 enumerators going door to door and it will save hundreds of millions of dollars.

Just as important is the fact that by having a permanent list, one that we can all work with as members of Parliament, will include Canadians better in the political process and will provide the opportunity for us as members of Parliament to communicate better with our constituents not only during an election campaign but between elections.

For example, I can see the opportunity to keep track of all the correspondence, to identify areas of interest and really build an informed database that will allow us to seek the opinions of our constituents. It will allow us to provide the education and information to our constituents on various issues of the day. It will be much more reliable as a database than what is currently available to us.

What makes this even more important is that we are moving toward new technologies. I am sure as members of Parliament we are all going to be faced with more and more interventions from constituents who have access to technology like the Internet. People will use various types of mechanisms to contact a member of Parliament which is important. That makes it more important for us to ensure we can get to the people who do not have access to those technologies which is one of the things a permanent list would accomplish.

A permanent list will make it easier for us to keep track of information. It will make it easier for constituents to access the list, for example, younger Canadians who are moving a lot, people who live in rooming houses, people who live in places such that the current system does not accommodate them. Having gone through many elections, not necessarily as a candidate but at the poll level, there are always problems getting people on the lists. The

permanent register brings a lot more certainty to the process, a lot more consistency, and is much more democratic.

There is a second important element of the bill. We are going to have a shorter campaign period. This is good public policy for two reasons. First, a shorter campaign period de-emphasizes the importance of spending on the campaign itself. The issue of money, of the ability to raise it, of the ability to conduct an elaborate campaign will be less important. Obviously if there is less time, the advantage of financially well-heeled candidates will diminish, which is good for democracy.

The shorter campaign period also de-emphasizes the impact of the campaign itself. What we are talking about now is having a choice made by constituents that may be measured a little more by the performance of the candidates, the government or the party over a longer period of time. There will be de-emphasis of the campaign and emphasis on one's community record. There will be emphasis on the performance, good or bad, of the government. Those may be more important considerations for electors to apply.

If we de-emphasize the campaign by making it shorter, there will be a greater tendency for people to vote on broader issues. We all know that during the course of a campaign the measures that are applied have to do with a candidate's ability to function in front of a television camera or their ability to speak before the public. Members of Parliament also know that those abilities are not nearly as important as one's ability to get the job done. It is important that we be measured as candidates in those terms and not necessarily on the basis of the others I mentioned.

The third element is the staggered voting hours across the country which is only fair. Then the outcomes of the election will not be known in the west prior to people voting. It is a good proposal that brings a greater sense of inclusion to all parts of Canada.

There is a great sense of alienation, whether geographic, socioeconomic or gender based. Whatever the source of alienation it is obviously something that governments, political parties and this institution should be constantly trying to improve on. I see this provision as a fundamental response to the tenet that Canadians must feel the system works. If you are voting when you know full well that a government has already been formed, you may not believe the system works. I would find it personally offensive.

With the new rules in place the voting will be staggered. This will allow voting to occur in a way that lends itself more to everybody feeling included. I welcome the fact that those amendments were made in a fashion that would also be sensitive to the fact that no one in Atlantic Canada would want to be voting at midnight. A reasonable accommodation has occurred.

I also pay tribute to the member for Vancouver East for her many interventions. As a hardworking member of Parliament she deserves to be acknowledged for her efforts in this regard.

It is important to deal with the question of alienation and making our constituents feel included in the process. In my case over the past three years I have held a number of public policy forums, the 18th of which was held last Sunday. These are pretty elaborate affairs where people in the constituency have an opportunity to debate the issues of the day. A week ago we discussed the upcoming budget. I was given direction by my constituents as to how I should approach any opportunity I may have to influence the outcome of the budget.

The types of reforms we are talking about today are consistent with that inclusion for the reasons I mentioned. I know it is difficult for all of us because we are constantly caught up in the crisis of the day in this place. From time to time we all let our guard down or we become a little less conscious of the need to consult. Again we have to be reminded on occasion.

There have been other attempts at electoral reforms in the last couple of years and not all were as positive for the country. The boundary redistribution which is coming into effect was poorly thought out.

I presented a motion on July 12 last year to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs objecting to the provisions of the report as it related to New Brunswick. The commission failed to respect the community of interest by dividing the greater Fredericton area into urban and rural ridings.

The area that surrounds Fredericton is now lost to another riding, a wonderful riding that I am sure you, Madam Speaker, will well represent long into the future. However, there is no logical connection with the Saint John River valley as has been determined by the redistribution system.

The outlying regions of Fredericton feel a strong attachment to that city. They receive all their federal services from that city. It was not a useful exercise to detach them from their logical place. It does not lend anything to our desire to have people feel included and to have some sense of continuity in the political process, regardless of which political party those constituents support. I believe it was an honest attempt at improving the boundaries, but it failed miserably in that measure.

I very much support not only the idea behind Bill C-63, but also how it will implement those ideas. We need to do everything we can to enhance our ability as members of Parliament to establish an honest daily relationship with all our constituents. A permanent list will allow that to happen. Minimizing the campaign makes us more accountable for our activities between elections. It also minimizes

the impact of money on the outcome. Of course by having a permanent list it will save Canadians millions of dollars.

With that, I encourage all members of the House to support the bill.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the two previous speakers. One thing that was very evident is that an election is obviously looming. The reason I say that is twofold. One is because of the increased rhetoric from the other side of the House.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Oh, come on. That is not true.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Now the rhetoric is really increasing. They are trying to drown out my intervention.

Anytime members opposite attack the Reform Party's fresh start program, we know they must be in trouble with it. Otherwise they would not give all that time in the House of Commons to draw it to the attention of the Canadian people.

The government is saying this bill is going to save taxpayers a lot of money in having a permanent electors list. If the government is really interested in saving taxpayers money as it says it is, why then would it not have put into this bill a repeal of the election rebates that are granted to all parties and candidates who run in elections?

If the government wants to save money, it should quit rebating the election expenses. This would be one way the government could save millions upon millions of dollars and yet it does not want to do it. Why? Certainly this has been part of the Reform Party's platform since the party was formed some nine years ago. If Reform were the government that is one of the changes we would make. If the government is interested in saving money, why would it not do that?

Also, if this is such a terrific piece of legislation, why is the government afraid to debate it? Why did it have to bring in time allocation and force this legislation through in a very short period of time? If it is a good piece of legislation and if it was so clearly though out as previous speakers have said, why are so many amendments being brought forward?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member noted that because of comments made by members on this side of the House that obviously an election is looming. I would suggest that we knew an election was looming because all the Reformers are quitting. Clearly it is a matter that they know full well it is better to get out now than to be asked to get out later.

Saving money is very important. I appreciate the question because it distinguishes between us very well. The reason there is public money involved in the political process is to diminish the importance of private money in the political process. It is that simple. A poor person who seeks office does not have the kind of money to put together and run a campaign. Consequently the public interest is served by public participation in financing elections. It is that simple. Clearly that is the difference between us.

Finally, I have to acknowledge the irony of what the hon. member is saying. In one paragraph the hon. member is asking why would we not want to have more debate and at the same time he is asking if this is such a good piece of legislation, why all the amendments? Clearly those are two completely inconsistent observations but I am not surprised.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the theme raised by my colleague that there must be an election imminent. The way those members are talking, they are so afraid of our fresh start program.

The member just before mentioned how wonderfully low the interest rates are and how anybody borrowing money on a mortgage now can save so much money. That is exactly Liberal think: you have to borrow money in order to get a benefit. Is that not wonderful? What if people do not want to borrow money? They are stuck with the high taxes. In fact if you borrow $200,000 you will get the same benefit as Reform's tax reductions.

It is Liberal think to say that low interest rates are a fantastic benefit. They are only a benefit if you borrow money. It is totally ridiculous. How can the hon. member justify that sort of approach where it is a benefit to borrow money instead of to reduce taxes?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will use the opportunity to answer the previous speaker's question because he was wondering why we did not engage in more debate. The answer is because of the quality of debate just offered by this questioner. I did not mention a fresh start. I did not mention interest rates. I did not mention any of those things. Clearly it is good evidence as to why we can exhaust this debate as quickly as we will.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Madam Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Fraser Valley East.

A number of the issues on Bill C-63 have been addressed by my colleague from Calgary West in terms of the specifics and where the Reform Party stands. I want to take on one comment that my colleague made in his remarks. He said that this bill which is supposedly to deal with some of the alienation in the west is not the solution to that alienation and the concerns that we have in western Canada. For example, changing the polling hours so that we do not

know the results of the vote in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes does not satisfy western Canada in terms of alienation.

Many of the Reform members who stand in this House are here because of the longstanding problems we have had with those in central Canada who do not have ears to listen to our problems. We are here to try to set those issues clearly before this assembly. For years the Tories and the Liberals have been on this side and then on that side of the House, but their ears have remained completely deaf to the issues of western Canada. The many times they have patronized us out in the west they have done it with little things which they throw out on the table.

Bill C-63 is just another one of those things. The government has changed the voting hours. There are 12 hours in which to vote and the government has tried to adjust it so that we cannot find out through today's technology how people voted in other places. And we are supposed to be satisfied with that and say how wonderful.

Other patronizing things have happened in this House as well which are just as unacceptable. There is crime in this country. There are youth who are committing adult crimes and this is totally unacceptable. I hear people across the way, including the member for York North, talk about the fresh start program of Reformers not having credibility. We have spent three and a half years in this assembly and the Liberal government has not dealt with the issue of crime.

What has the government done? There has been nothing to deal with the issue of crime but to register the guns of the innocent people of Canada. That is what the government has done. A big bill and a lot of fanfare and it is a bill the government cannot even implement for Canadians. That is what the government has given to Canadians.

It is not only the issue of crime but also other problems this country has. Reformers presented to this House an option for unity that if Quebec is to stay, should we not decentralize some powers. The government says things are good enough the way they are, that if it gives good government they should be satisfied. It is not resolving the matter. It continues. Western Canadian alienation continues. These little titbits get rolled out on the floor and the government thinks we should be satisfied, not only in Quebec but out in the west and that we should keep quiet.

It is just not good enough. We see it symbolized in the intent of this elections act which is before us today. The government has to do better.

The hon. member for North York spoke a few moments ago on this bill. He talked about budgeting and numbers and so on. There was a group of individuals representing the Liberal Party which sat for eight years on this side of the House. That group had eight years to do some work, eight years to prepare for government.

We came back for the session in 1994-95 and there was no legislation. We got a zero budget which had no indication or direction, no deficit reduction when Canadians were screaming for deficit reduction. We had to wait a whole fiscal year before the government woke up to what was needed in Canada.

Today the Reform Party has presented to Canadians a credible option so that when it is government it can walk into government and deal with it. If the Liberals had that kind of thought in mind we would have had a better government. We would not have a deficit of $27 billion today; we would have been closer to the $17 billion the Minister of Finance has targeted for another year.

This government always puts out things for symbolic reasons to try to fool the people of Canada, rather than doing something which has substance. That is the case with the bill which is before us at this time.

What should have happened in this term of office? It is time for the government to recognize that the regions of the country, western Canada and even Quebec, should have better representation. It is time for it to recognize that senators should be elected rather than put in the other House by patronage appointments. There have been at least two senators appointed during the 35th Parliament. They have been sent up to the other House and are in that Liberal haven of milk and honey until the age of 75. What a giveaway of public money. There is no accountability.

That would have been something of substance which would have helped western Canada, rather than the amendment that gave us different polling hours. There should be an elected Senate, an effective Senate and one which has equal representation. That would bring something better to the Canadian scenario than what we have before us at the moment.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment with respect to my colleague's remarks.

I would point out to him that the proposal of his party to decentralize government in this country as a means of solving our unity problems has obviously been rejected by the majority of Canadians, as is witnessed by where the party stands in the polls. The majority of Canadians realize that if the country has a weak central government we will be playing into the hands of the separatists, both the separatists in Quebec and the separatists in western Canada.

I believe that Canadians are wiser than the Reform Party, which is reflected in where it stands in the polls.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give a quick response to that utterance.

The Canadian people are mature and responsible. Provinces are responsible entities in this country. They have shown that they can manage their public affairs and their fiscal affairs much better than the federal government, which is so centralized. Who has the big debt in the country which amounts to $600 billion? Who has the deficit in the country? The federal Liberal government. Who has looked after the deficit and debt in this country? Eight of the provinces. When will the federal government, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the member who has just spoken stand to say they have a balanced budget, which eight of the provinces have?

When they have fiscal and social policies which are reflective of the Canadian people then the member can say what he has said. Under the circumstances today, the Liberal federal government has no credibility to be the guardian of the needs of Canadians.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I followed the comments of the hon. member who said that during the last three and a half years the Reform Party provided good leadership in the House. If that is the case, why is the Reform Party standing at 11 per cent in the national polls? It is sinking in Alberta and in the rest of the west.

What would the hon. member suggest we do, go back to the old system where the rich and powerful control the House? Or does he want to adopt our revision of the Canada Elections Act so it will be open to each and every citizen in this land, no matter where they come from, on an equal basis?

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Madam Speaker, in the period 1984 to 1993 the Tories led this country. They had majority governments and could take legislation or fiscal policy in any direction they wanted. They were high in the polls. The new leader, Kim Campbell, was infallible. They had answers to a thousand questions. However, when the worm turned and the Canadian people saw through the facade, the Tory government ended up with two people in the back row and not even a recognized party.

Therefore the hon. member had better remember the lessons of this House. Those who are irresponsible, those who continue to put this country into debt and those who try to fool the Canadian people will end up as a minority party, unrecognized in this House as well.