Debates of Nov. 26th, 1996

Canada Elections Act

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the hon. Bloc Quebecois member.

It is a very interesting topic of discussion, as to who should contribute or could contribute to the democratic process and what kind of credit they should receive. Under the current system it is a tax credit which goes to any individual. By no means would we obstruct anyone from donating to the political process, to the democratic process of this country.

We take pride in having one of the freest and greatest democratic countries in the world. That is evident by the fact that we have a separatist opposition party requesting a change today. There is probably not another country in the world which would have as its

official opposition a separatist party attempting to pull the country apart.

I feel confident that the Canadian taxpayers choose freely how, when and who might give to the political process through the credit taxation system.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member took great pains to stress the money which would be saved by this bill and I am sure we are all very happy about that.

There is also a new technology which would enable us to save a lot of money and there was no mention of it in the bill. That is the use of electronic touch-tone voting. Introducing that technology or making it possible for Elections Canada to do it would make it very convenient for the elderly, the disabled and other people who might have difficulty getting to the polls. It would also potentially save enormous amounts of money.

Even though it is not in the bill, would the member indicate if she would support Elections Canada moving toward electronic voting as one method of voting?

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of the Reform Party brings up a very valid and important point.

The province of Nova Scotia used electronic voting in a leadership campaign a few years ago. That was one of the times it was used and it was very successful when the technology was initiated. It is something we could look at.

This is the first step in electoral reform in the elections act. It is the beginning step. I am sure with technology improvements and the rapid pace of change that we will be forward looking in addressing any amendments which might be brought forward.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will share my speaking time with the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.

Amending the Canada Elections Act is an exercise which, in my opinion, should be taken seriously. It means the entire legislation should be reviewed. It is not a matter of adding a few things here and there which do nothing to improve the legislation.

I noticed that members opposite did not consider this legislation to be very important. The only thing that seems important to them is to pass this bill as quickly as possible, to rush it through Parliament.

The Canadian public wants electoral legislation that is clear and transparent. The public has the right to be well informed. However, the government does not seem willing to pass legislation that would guarantee Canadians the dice are not loaded.

This bill has certain weaknesses. It completely overlooks the fact that campaign spending should be strictly controlled. By keeping spending to a minimum, more citizens will be given a chance to express their views in a given party. Everyone will be on the same footing. There will be a level playing field. Consider Quebec's legislation on political party financing, adopted by the Lévesque government in 1977. I truly believe that since that time, and this has been proven, the public is satisfied with the situation. Quebec legislation provides that only individual voters may help finance political parties.

The Canadian legislation, including the bill before us today, is far more flexible. Businesses and unions have the right to finance political parties. Now seriously, has anyone ever seen a business or a company vote? Never.

Another question that comes to mind is this: Why were companies and businesses given the right to finance a political party? The answer is obvious. These companies and businesses use their contributions to try and influence the government.

If a business gives several thousand dollars to a political party and this party forms the government, the business can expect the government to return the favour. These are the businesses where the government will find its friends, and often, these friends are appointed to positions in various commissions.

In other words, the present way political parties are financed encourages lobbying. When we say lobbying, we are getting pretty close to nepotism and patronage. Legislation that is clear should emphasize the fact that only voters have the right to finance political parties.

What about these big fundraising dinners? In 1993, a few days before the election, there were banquets at $1,000 and $3,000 per plate.

Who in Canada can afford such an expense, except the well-to-do, who arrange for their company to pick up the tab. I think, therefore, that a bill like the one before us must restrict the funding of political parties to voters. It must reflect democracy, and thus equal opportunities for all. In this bill, democracy takes a beating.

Next, the bill proposes a permanent register of electors. I do not think this is a bad idea, except that all the necessary information has to be provided in order to further democracy. The list must ensure that elections personnel are able to identify voters. If they cannot, we could face problems that might topple power on one side or the other.

For example, if the list does not include the date of birth, a person of dubious intentions could represent himself as another individual and deny that person the right to vote. The date of birth is essential to the permanent list. It is vital in helping electoral personnel identify people more easily. In the old days, we used to

talk about floating voters, where, for example, people would vote using the names of the dead. We have to take every precaution to avoid taking a step backwards.

Another factor involves registering a person's gender. It may not appear necessary to everyone, but I consider it very important. You will understand that in a riding like mine it may be necessary. Just think about the name "Tremblay" in my riding. Add to this first names that are as common for women as they are for men, such as Claude, Dominique, Camille or Michel, and it becomes impossible for returning officers to certify that the person before them is indeed the one whose name is on the list. Nowadays, ill-intentioned people can still do aggravating things to voters. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account all these details when making up a permanent voters list.

I agree that the current act must be amended, but not in haste as the government seems intent on doing. An election act affects all citizens, regardless of who they are. Will the government have time, before the next election, to properly inform all voters about this permanent list?

If the bill before us is passed, it should not apply to the next election. Why? Because voters need to know their rights.

Another issue which is not dealt with in the bill is the possibility of legislating a set date for an election. I can tell you that such a measure would save a lot of money and speculation.

In the United States, for example, everyone knows what to expect. In Canada, it is still not the case. Two and half years into a mandate, people already start wondering whether an election will be held in the fall or the spring. And so on.

A lot of energy could instead be devoted to reviewing many bills that we currently do not have time to look at. This period is viewed much more as a pre-election time.

[The Speaker]

My dear colleague, I am sorry, but your 10 minutes are up. I now recognize the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that, with the upcoming changes to the electoral map, which will mean that the Témiscouata polling division will shift to the riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup-Témiscouata-Les Basques, you might get a bit turned around, but no matter, because it will be the same person here after the next election.

I had a question for my hon. colleague, one I have been asking myself ever since I came here. On a number of occasions, the Bloc Quebecois has come back to the issue of funding of political parties. Being 43 years old and having been raised in the political culture established by René Lévesque, according to which the funding of political parties in Quebec is based on contributions from individuals rather than corporations, I have the impression that this argument, in democratic terms, is very convincing in and of itself and does not require further explanations.

I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that it is because of a lack of courage that the present government has failed to address this in the bill, because it would have been impossible to break the vicious circle by which, when a company has contributed $50,000, it then influences the way in which political parties are funded, and by influencing political parties, companies can keep making $50,000 contributions.

Is it because the present government lacked the courage to change this state of affairs, or is it also because of a certain ignorance of political culture, of the positive effects that could arise from such a reform?

I would like to know whether my colleague thinks it is for one of these two reasons, or for another reason altogether that he thinks would help us understand better why the government is reforming the elections act but is closing its eyes to such an important aspect as funding?

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague's question, let me say, first of all, as I indicated earlier, that every chance we have had since coming here in 1993, we in the Bloc Quebecois have defended funding of political parties as we know it in Quebec.

We have also strongly criticized funding by big business, these large corporations that make huge profits every year and can easily afford to make substantial contributions to the traditional parties such as the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. Any government receiving such funding has no choice but to return the favour at one time or another. For one thing, what this means for democracy is scary.

Will bills introduced in the House under these circumstances truly reflect the wishes of the people or those of the lobbyists and financial backers? That is the first part of my answer.

Now, as to whether the people opposite had enough courage or not, I have to say that they lacked courage in introducing this bill. For once, funding of political parties could have been put in the hands of those who should have it, the voters, with a cap on contributions.

Our colleagues across the way missed a golden opportunity to give power and opportunity, equal power and opportunity to all. At present, there is disparity. Some political parties are immensely rich because big business keeps pouring money into their coffers, while the others get the crumbs. This necessarily has an effect on

the debates. All parties are not on an equal footing, there are strings attached. They certainly lacked political courage in this matter.

There is still time to take corrective action. They could do it right now. But they will argue that, traditionally, nothing new is added at third reading stage, that we should either pass or defeat what we have before us.

The strength of the Parti Quebecois is in public funding. You can be sure of one thing: we will get re-elected in the next election and we will have public funding to thank for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate at third reading on Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act, which includes interesting things, such as a computerized file and other significant technical changes.

On the other hand, as the hon. member pointed out earlier, and I will elaborate on this, the bill is silent on an important issue, namely the financing of political parties. This is something which, under the British democratic system, has evolved very slowly. Quebec uses a very modern system, a system that is almost ahead of its time, compared to what exists in Canada, North America and even elsewhere in the world.

Let me make a comparison for the benefit of voters. Under the Quebec act, only individuals can make financial contributions to political parties, up to a maximum of $3,000 per party. Companies, unions, organizations or lobby groups cannot give a cheque to the government and thus have an influence they should not have, since they do not vote.

By comparison, the federal legislation allows any corporate entity to help finance political parties. As we know, a number of big businesses, particularly in the banking sector, take full advantage of that provision. Lists of contributions show amounts of money as high as $30,000, $50,000 or $80,000 paid to political parties.

Under the federal legislation, there is no ceiling for such contributions. There is a maximum for income tax purposes, but nothing prevents someone from contributing $100,000. To give you an example, the New Democratic Party once received $250,000 from someone. This has a negative impact on democracy.

I think political parties can become somewhat complacent and dependent when not forced to go and meet people like the Bloc Quebecois does. We ask people to contribute $10, $20 or $50 to help our party survive. We talk with voters, who give us their views and tell us about their interests and concerns. This is very healthy for the political life of a party.

However, it is not easy. It requires daily and constant efforts. It may not be the favourite part of our work, but it forces us to be in touch with voters. Therefore, this issue should have been dealt with in the act. The government should have taken this opportunity to do so.

Under the current federal legislation, political parties rely on cocktail parties at $1,000 a head, on special meetings at $2,000, $5,000 or $10,000, and even on cheques in the amount of $50,000 or $80,000 from businesses. Then you know what happens to the legislative process.

Then, when an organization has a point of view to give on a bill being drafted or one already tabled, there is a tendency to listen a little harder when someone has given us $50,000, for example, or when Canadian banks contribute $300,000 or $400,000; there is a chance that the government will be more receptive. The ordinary citizen cannot come up with this sort of money. There is a double standard. Our democracy, which is so well viewed in the world, still has a little way to go.

Earlier, a member of the government party said that Parliament is wonderful because it tolerates a party that she described as separatist, but that I would call sovereignist. I would reply to the member that we are here today primarily because of our funding, which is rooted in Quebec's tradition of looking to individuals for contributions. We set our own constraint, so that, although the federal legislation allowed us to seek funding from companies, unions and organizations, we did not choose that route; we decided to respect the spirit and the letter of the Quebec legislation and to accept contributions from individuals only.

That meant that we certainly had our work cut out for us in the years before the election, but, at the same time, it brought us into contact with voters, with the result that we could be sure that, unlike other platforms, our party's platform reflected what Quebecers wanted. This is the advantage of funding by individuals. This fundamental concern with ensuring contact with the citizen was almost the greatest contribution made by René Lévesque to democracy in Quebec.

I would like to mention various pieces of legislation, because this is the ultimate result. It allows legislators to be much more independent of large corporations, unions and other organizations.

Quebec has passed minimum terms of employment legislation, voluntary retirement and anti-strikebreaking legislation, and legislation banning advertising aimed at children. Is this not the very legislation which, in a system with very powerful lobbies that even go so far as to make financial contributions, would not have been passed by a government with behind the scenes forces at work?

If the children's advertising industry had been able to contribute $50,000, $100,00 or $200,000 in Quebec in order to oppose this bill, do you think we would have succeeded in creating legislation

as progressive and as generous to the public, while meeting the criteria for equality in our society?

The funding of political parties is an important and significant element in a society's democratic quality of life. It is regrettable that, when the government was revising its Elections Act, it did not take the time to find a solution to this. Perhaps there could have been compromises, but there is certainly material here for a start: a ceiling on campaign contributions could have been set.

The present Liberal government could certainly have stated that $5,000, or $10,000 was the maximum that could be accepted. Then, when people come looking for favours, saying "Well, I did give you a hand", the answer is "Yes, you did give a hand, but that helping hand is worth a maximum of $5,000 or $10,000. One is not, therefore, required to bend over backwards in response to large donations. That could have made a difference, having a ceiling, but the main element is that only individuals may donate. This makes us independent.

Taking the example of the taxation document tabled by the Bloc Quebecois, do you think a political party which had received $50,000 or $100,000 from various organizations could have tabled a document of such quality, one acknowledged by the finance minister himself as constructive and positive? No, this was a document based on common sense, on the outcome of the consultations we held.

The official opposition finance critic, among others, came to my riding. Meetings were held with chamber of commerce members. They shared their opinions with us. We included in our proposal the views of the La Pocatière and Rivière-du-Loup chambers of commerce, views which are moderate, interesting and non-partisan and hence could be used. The entire document was drafted without any undue pressure from anyone. On the other hand, banks and labour unions could also make representations.

In the case of Canadian, do we not have a situation that is strongly influenced by political party financing? One wonders whether things would have been different if contributions could only be made by individuals and whether there would not have been an entirely different solution to the future of air transportation from Canada to other countries as opposed to the one we have now, where we have a lame duck that has been barely surviving for the past few years.

Why does the government keep pouring money into this company? What could justify this? It is difficult to find an answer, but I think that if the government had included in the bill a provision to tighten the rules for political party financing, this would have been a major contribution.

In 10, 15 or 20 years, people would have said that this government brought about major changes in standards of political behaviour and that individual citizens have become more important to their elected representatives because only individuals can finance their activities and influence them in what they do by the quality of their argument, not by the number of dollars in their wallet.

These are important factors which we do not find in the bill, and that is pity. Revising legislation like the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act is not a daily occurrence. That is what we are about to do, and a few elements will be in effect for the next election. So at the end of this century and into the next decade, we can expect to live with the present legislation. There are elements that should have been considered regarding financing. These are not in the bill, and it is really too bad and is difficult to accept.

However, I believe we in the Bloc Quebecois are known for our tenacity and for the fact that we can open the books at any time and say who contributed to our campaign, and I think the Government of Canada missed a wonderful opportunity to make major changes to improve the situation.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I have understood what my colleague said, he feels that, in Canada, there are two sorts of contributions under the existing elections act and even with the bill before us. There are political financial contributions and there are ideological financial contributions.

Here is an example. In Canada, in recent years, only about two per cent of the population has contributed reasonable sums to political parties. This may be described as ideological funding. These people give because they believe in the party's program, its intentions and its policy.

On the other hand, always during this time and under the former elections act, new contributions, political financial contributions, were made. For example, 40 per cent of the top 500 companies made contributions, and 35 per cent of the top 155 financial institutions contributed in the same period.

When the bulk of a political party's funding comes from these major financial institutions, and this is my question to my colleague, does their contribution affect objectives, policies and the legislation introduced in this House? Do these people not expect, and this is my other question, some sort of return on the exorbitant amounts they contribute to the traditional federal parties?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I will answer by giving him two examples. The first one I will draw from our political past.

As you know, in Quebec in the 1960s, the government took over the hydro sector. I suspect that was when Lévesque developed his plan to limit the funding of political parties to that provided by individuals.

A very powerful lobby of private companies opposed government ownership of utilities. These companies were making important contributions to the political parties. They used to send all kinds of money to ministers and members of Parliament and Lévesque was keenly aware of this pressure. His reasoning was that those he spoke with thought government ownership made plain common sense. That was his finding.

Then, he figured there might be a way of reducing the pressure and ensuring that the voters are given as much importance as those who do not have the right to vote. In a democracy, the greater the importance given to the voters at the expense of those who do not have the right to vote, the more significant and interesting it sounds to me.

The other aspects I would like to address is family trusts in the existing system. Take the hypothetical case, in relation to family trusts, where funding by corporations and other organizations did not exist. Would the outcome have been the same if only individual citizens could have funded these trusts? To ask the question is to answer it. That is why this reform is incomplete.

This is an incomplete bill. There is an important element missing. The government overlooked a significant aspect in lacking courage in establishing its political base: the funding of its political activities. The bill does not contain the main thing that is required to ensure the quality of democratic life that suits our needs.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support Bill C-63. This is an important stage in the process undertaken two years ago to establish a permanent voters list. Members who took part in this exercise know how necessary it had become to modernize our electoral system.

I would like to briefly point out the four key elements of the bill, for the benefit of those who are not very familiar with the issue.

First, the bill provides for the establishment of a permanent register of electors to replace the door to door census. Second, the electoral period is reduced from 47 to 36 days. Third, one last door to door census outside of an electoral period will be used to make the preliminary list of voters that will be distributed in the five days following the call of the next election. This census will also provide the basic information for the permanent electoral list. Fourth, changes are made to voting hours, so as to put all Canadian electors on the same footing.

The bill will basically allow a more modern and effective management of electoral operations.

I would like to emphasize the considerable work that preceded the introduction of this bill and the high degree of consensus I believe exists around its provisions and the necessity to move on these changes.

Through the work of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, many elements of this bill have been explored. Furthermore, the bill now reflects committee amendments flowing from the diligent work of my colleagues on that same committee.

I would like to say a few words on comments made earlier today by the hon. member for Bellechasse, who made a major contribution to the process that led to this bill. I must reject the comments he made, when, to a certain extent, he questioned the credibility of the staff of Canada's chief electoral officer. In my opinion, these people have served well all members from all political parties who took part in the exercise.

I understand that this is the great hall of debate, to debate ideas and to debate values, but I only regret that we have commented today on professional officials, darned good professional officials, who served the committee and this whole process very well. Yes, they were in attendance, and continue to be today, to be consulted by all parliamentarians who have an interest in this process. However, I regret that there was some doubt left as to their integrity. I want to express on behalf of the government our total confidence in those officials, which ultimately reflects our confidence in our entire electoral process. I do not believe we should compromise either their independence or their impartiality.

In addition, our chief electoral officer and his staff have worked on this issue, at times in consultation with provincial counterparts and members of the committee. I believe we now have a bill which meets the needs of Canadians and it should be implemented as soon as possible.

It has been suggested that there has not been enough time to consider this bill. In fact, Elections Canada began working on the register in 1994. Elections Canada apprised the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs several times on its progress, including the feasibility report which was presented in March 1996. This led to more work and the result is the proposal which is before the House today.

In summary, the register project has moved ahead as quickly as possible while providing time for parliamentary study and debate.

If I may, I would first like to provide the House with a few explanations about this bill. As I mentioned earlier, a final enumeration will be carried out nationally, not during an election period.

The procedure used for this enumeration would be the same as the one used after writs are issued. This final enumeration would be beneficial from two points of view.

First, it would make it possible, in anticipation of the next general election, the 36th in our history, to compile a preliminary list of voters, which would be distributed in the five days after the writs are issued. Rapid distribution of this and subsequent lists will make it possible to shorten the electoral period. Canadians quite obviously want a shorter election campaign, for practical as well as economic reasons, but also because it would allow greater intergovernmental co-operation.

Second, this final enumeration would provide an opportunity to collect the data necessary to compile a permanent register of voters. Enumerators will ask voters their full name, address, sex and date of birth, and ask them to confirm that they are indeed 18 years of age and Canadian citizens.

On the question of sex, the government is pleased to support an amendment restricting this information to internal management of the register by Elections Canada. It will not appear on the lists distributed to parties, candidates and provincial administrations, if their legislation requires it.

The permanent register would be compiled through this last door to door enumeration and through the use of the Prince Edward Island and Alberta lists, since these provinces are better positioned to co-operate with Elections Canada. The register would be fully operational for electoral events following the next general election.

What are the benefits of this bill? The register would be maintained and kept election ready by Elections Canada. It would keep the list current by drawing from existing federal and provincial data sources. It is also important to note that the register would generate the preliminary list of electors for an electoral event whose early availability is key to a shortened campaign.

Once the writs are issued there would also be a new and enhanced revision process to ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to have their names on the voting list.

A permanent register of electors has several advantages. Over time it would provide considerable savings at the federal level by replacing door to door enumeration with data provided by Revenue Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada. We estimate the federal savings at $30 million for each federal general election. It would also save costs for parties by making it possible to shorten the electoral period to 36 days.

It has been asked why 36 days was decided on. The Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing had recommended a 40 day campaign. Ontario's campaign is 37 days long. Certain countries, such as Great Britain and Australia, also have short campaigns.

The amendment means that federal campaigns, both referendums and general elections, will be 36 days long. We anticipate that provincial and municipal administrations will also want to have access to the federal register. Should this be the case, there will be additional savings to taxpayers, who support the three levels of government after all.

Finally, this register will encourage better federal-provincial co-operation and make it possible to reduce overlap and duplication.

Elections Canada worked with all its provincial counterparts on this project. They are enthusiastically and impatiently waiting to see the final version of this legislation in order to finalize the latest agreements with Elections Canada.

Elections officials in Alberta and Prince Edward Island are right now best positioned to collaborate with Elections Canada in building the first register. The New Brunswick legislature is debating relevant legislation at this time. In other words, the provinces are supportive and eager to see us institute this initiative.

This enthusiasm extends to provincial registrars of motor vehicles and of vital statistics where there are agreements in principle to provide Elections Canada with data once the federal legislation is passed. Allow me to make several points about the bill absolutely clear.

The register of electors would not prevent a citizen from exercising his or her constitutionally protected right to vote. Citizens would not have to have their name on the register to vote. However, they would need to ensure that their name is placed on the voters list either during the electoral campaign or on polling day using procedures already in the law and enhanced by this bill. Also, we believe the register would be as efficient in terms of accuracy as the current system of door to door enumeration.

This bill respects voters' privacy and includes measures aimed at ensuring the confidentiality of personal information.

We insist that the principle of active consent be applied to any information issued by federal sources. This is particularly important for any information transmitted by Revenue Canada. Taxpayers would, in fact, be required to check a box on their tax return indicating their consent to having their name, address and date of birth passed on to Elections Canada.

A similar approach would be used with new Canadians, to ensure that they could exercise their newly acquired right to vote.

The bill also indicates who would be entitled to use this information and states that it is to be used for election purposes only. Any improper use of the information would be subject to strict penalties.

Voters could also write to the chief electoral officer in order to request that their personal information be stricken from the voters' register, or that they continue to be included in the federal listing, without any possibility of the information being passed on to other electoral administrations. Similarly, they could also ask for access to their information and have any errors corrected or changes made.

Once Canadians learn of the advantages of the new system they will want to ensure its success. With some 3.7 million changes each year to the population of eligible voters we need this multifaceted approach to keeping the register current.

On a final clarification, the bill ensures that each vote carries equal weight. We have struck a compromise that is equitable within the geography of a country that majestically spans six time zones. The proposed voting day schedule acknowledges a world of instantaneous communication but ensures that each vote has equal weight, whether cast in the riding of St. John's East, Newfoundland or in Skeena, British Columbia.

In conclusion, members are asked to vote on a bill that reflects work of the past years, modernizes our electoral system, gives each vote equal weight, meets concerns of opposition and government parties and promotes federal-provincial co-operation.

Fundamentally this bill is consistent with our democratic traditions and for that reasons should be implemented as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. whip of the government. I need a couple of further points of clarification if he might provide them.

Earlier today I asked another member of the government why there appears to be a contradiction. On the one hand the government claims that there is genuine universal support for this legislation, for these changes to the elections act. Yet what we find are quite a number of amendments coming from all directions to this particular piece of legislation.

It would seem to me that if there is support, and if this has been well thought out, indeed if it has reached the point where the government in its infinite wisdom has decided to fast track this and bring forward time allocation to hurry this through the House with very limited debate, it is a piece of legislation that is all encompassing and that certainly is going to do the job with no need for amendment.

That is the first question I have for the hon. whip. There certainly appears to be a contradiction in this piece of legislation.

The second point is he talked long and grand about the confidentiality of the electoral lists once in place. I wish I could say I share his confidence in that this list will be kept confidential. It certainly makes one wonder when a few weeks ago it was revealed that a filing cabinet showed up at some place in Ontario with seven or eight Revenue Canada files belonging to individual Canadians. This is the way the government treats the confidentiality of information.

Given that it is well known that computer software can be hacked into on a regular basis nowadays, I simply do not share the confidence of the hon. member and his government that this particular list will be secure and will be used, as he stated, only for electoral purposes. I wonder if the hon. member could clarify further how he intends to keep the list truly confidential.

If so, why is there a need to identify voters by gender? Could he perhaps touch on that issue as well. There is a real fear among female voters that their addresses and their places of residence will become known and become public knowledge. The gender associated with that obviously is a concern for security purposes.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River for his remarks and his questions.

No, and I hope he is not too shocked or too disappointed, there is not universal support. I think it is quite clear within the halls of this wonderful Chamber today that there are some different views and some opposition, but the bill does meet the test that was set forth a few years ago.

There is a great consensus across the land with regard to elections as to whether they should be shorter. If we have a difference of opinion on whether it should be 40 days or 36 days,

certainly the bill concretely addresses the matter and I believe it will meet the test of Canadians in terms of length.

I think there is a great deal of consensus also with regard to the other objective which was to establish a permanent register. With due respect to opposing views on certain matters in the bill, I think those two principle objectives have been met in the legislation. Let us not forget this was not drawn in haste. In fact, there has been a great deal of dialogue and a great deal of debate throughout the country over the past few years about this subject matter. I believe that having considered some of the amendments that were put forward what we have arrived at demonstrates the openness which was apparent in the deliberations of this piece of legislation.

I went on the record earlier in committee on the matter of staggered hours. In a country like ours which has six different times zones, I submit it is not perfect. It is a partial solution but I believe we have made some great strides in terms of recognizing each vote as being equal in weight. I wish there were a perfect way we could all finish voting at the same time and all the results would come out at the same time. That would be wonderful. But given the realities of the six time zones, I recognize that even with the present legislation polls in British Columbia will be open for half an hour longer than those in Ontario, Quebec and other provinces.

Yes, by the time the polls close in British Columbia there will be some early results beginning to come out of other regions of the country, principally in Ontario and Quebec. However, I think we have made some progress and I submit this is a partial solution but the best solution we were able to arrive at at this time.

With regard to the confidence in our system, we cannot legislate confidence. Either the confidence is there or it is not. I happen to have all the confidence in the world in our electoral process as it was, as it is now and as it will be further improved with the legislation.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although the hon. member did not mention political party financing and did not answer the question as to whether financing should be provided exclusively by voters or by large corporations, nevertheless, there are certain grey areas in the Canada Elections Act with respect to other expenditures in the course of an election campaign. For instance, certain related expenditures may be made before, during and after an election.

This represents an enormous amount of money for the traditional parties. It may be as much as $4 million or $5 million per election, and this is to pay for certain expenses which cannot be specified. I am thinking of polls ordered by political parties and research on which a party like the Liberal Party of Canada or the Conservative Party will spend nearly $1 million, on both counts, during an election campaign, without any of this appearing in the books of the riding associations or in a candidate's statement.

I would also like to mention volunteer work, not the grass roots volunteers who belong to the organizing committees, people who come and work because they believe in a political party, but the volunteers provided by large lobbying companies. We are given some very striking examples in the Lortie report.

Some companies like Public Affairs International, who are lobbyists, told the Lortie Commission that they had lent as many as six to eight experts in various fields to do partisan work for the benefit of the traditional parties. This work could be worth $1,000 or $2,000 daily. Why, when this bill was introduced, did the government not consider revising these grey areas which create an imbalance between the various political parties in this country?

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first say that the system we are advocating is fair. There is nothing hidden in the funding of political parties. In my election campaign, all contributions are made public, regardless of the amount or the source. There is nothing magic nor hidden, everything is public.

Since 1988, I have had the honour to represent the people in my riding of Stormont-Dundas. At no time have I felt my integrity compromised by contributions to my own or my party's political campaign.

I can say, quite sincerely, that I am fascinated by the way the Bloc members and the members from Quebec handle their financial affairs. It is most interesting, and possibly worth looking into later on.

Today I am perfectly comfortable with the way our political parties are funded. I think we are very fortunate in Canada to be funded by major companies. It means that members like me, without personal means, may be elected.

Under the American political system, for example, Bob Kilger could never be a representative. I could never be, because my pockets are not deep enough to permit me to represent my electors as I can in Canada thanks to the system of funding political parties.

[The Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway-youth employment; the hon. member for Rosedale-trade; the hon. member for Davenport-infrastructure program.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.

This bill has been very interesting in a number of respects. Yesterday during report stage we discussed the fact that it is probably one the most important bills we could have in the House of Commons in that it specifically and directly affects how we vote. Indeed, voting and democracy are absolutely Siamese twins. The two things go together. Therefore how we structure this bill is exceptionally important.

It has been raised a number of times by my colleagues in this House, the reality that this bill came forward rather quickly, that it was in committee only for two weeks, one of which the House was not sitting, and that the government has seen fit in some respects to treat this Chamber once again as a rubber stamp in making sure we have closure so that it gets out of the House in proper jig time.

While I would definitely like to commend the government for having listened during debate and, as a result of that, bringing forward a few meaningful amendments that were proposed under unanimous consent this morning, it must be pointed out that if the process had been better and had allowed sufficient time for there to be proper input and proper thought put into it, I feel this bill would be far better than it is right now.

So while on one side of the coin I do commend the government for listening and then, even after report stage and by unanimous consent from the House, moving some meaningful amendments to the bill, it must be severely criticized for the fact that it put itself into that position.

I particularly want to recognize that the Liberals have removed sex designation from the list that will circulate annually to political parties. The words "sex" or "gender" would appear only on the deputy returning officer's copies. This would allow for two things to happen. First, at the poll the people who are responsible in determining who is in front of them desiring a ballot to cast a vote that the designation would be easier with the gender designation.

Second, although it is just a small thing it is very significant, those women who wish to maintain the confidentiality of their gender in terms of widely circulated lists, that would be respected.

I would also like to take a look at the annual provision of lists. The government whip has gone out of his way, if I understood his speech, to make the point that this annual provision of lists is for a specific purpose. Unfortunately, throughout the entire day I have yet to have a definition of what that specific purpose might be. If the lists are not against this law, but if the lists against this law are not going to be used for purposes other than that for which they are designed, then what is the purpose of the lists? The government has not made that clear at all.

The major bone of contention that I have with this bill is the issue of the staggered voting hours. The government whip went out of his way to say they wanted to make sure that all votes are equal in Canada. I believe all these votes are equal in Canada, notwithstanding that Prince Edward Island has four seats with an average of about 35,000 voters per seat versus most constituencies with about 100,000. There are aberrations in the system but when people go to the polls in Canada they are casting a vote and hopefully an informed vote.

As I said yesterday, it seems to me that what the government has done in this particular case is to respond to a perception of a problem. There is no problem. It has responded to a perception of a problem.

The perception is that for people like me from British Columbia, when the results come on at eight o'clock at night, with the polls having been closed for three hours in Ontario, four hours in the maritimes and four and a half hours in Newfoundland, many of the results are in and therefore the die has been cast. That is a perception.

As we discussed yesterday, the reality is if a person wants to make use of the Internet or of various satellite services or long distance telephones, they can call to eastern Canada and determine which way the vote is going. However, I know full well that for every person who would say that the Liberals are taking all of the seats and we want to get on to the Liberal gravy train so we had better vote for a Liberal, there would be at least a counter balancing number of people who would say that I did not want those scallywags to have the full sway in Ottawa so I am going to make sure there is a counter balance.

This is a perceived problem. In responding to this perceived problem let us take a look at what it will do. The majority of people who will be watching this on television will probably be political wonks. In other words, some of us just love to be in politics and understand what is going on. Certainly for people who read Hansard that would be true. The reality is that we need to take a look at what this will do, even those of us who are involved in politics and who take a great interest in politics.

Something occurs on voting day which is completely legal and completely above board. During the course of the campaign political parties will have identified the people who are most likely to support them at the polling stations. By a perfectly legal process they become aware of who has and who has not voted. Obviously there is no way-and there never will be a way-to know how they have voted, but they will know who has or who has not voted. Therefore, if my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca had not voted and I knew that he was going to be voting Reform, my

supporters would make a point of calling him up and asking him if he needed help to get to the polling station. People are offered rides to get to the polling stations. This type of follow-up occurs.

In Ontario the polls will close at 9:30 p.m. There will be a period of time, from approximately 6:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m., when this kind of activity will take place. For the Liberal Party, the Reform Party and other parties which are well organized in Ontario and have constituency organizations that have identified their voters, this is a bonus. It gives them time to call people, perhaps do some last minute arm twisting and get them out to the polling station. People who cannot be bothered to go out to vote because it is raining or whatever will be contacted and asked if they need a drive or some help to get to the polling station. The parties that are organized in given constituencies will be able to get out the vote.

Contrast the situation in Ontario with that in Vancouver. Vancouver is a very growing, hustling, bustling, congested city. Most people have to commute. Commutes in Vancouver range from an hour to an hour and a half. Even if people get off work at five o'clock in the afternoon, they will probably be coming through their door, looking forward to a cup of coffee and a meal at around 6:30 p.m. Then someone could call them to say: "Rush over to the poll because it is going to close at seven o'clock. You have to get over there to vote". For the person who does not treat their franchise seriously, they will say: "Thank you very much for the call, but I would just as soon sit down and put my feet up".

The difference between the voting patterns in Vancouver and the voting patterns in Toronto, I predict, will be absolutely measurable following the next election. There will not be a disenfranchisement. In other words, the people in Vancouver will still have a 12-hour opportunity. Those who take their voting responsibilities seriously, as all Canadians should, will make sure they get out to vote. However, for those people who require encouragement to vote, that activity will simply not be available in British Columbia which is in the Pacific time zone.

What have we done? We have come up with a perceived problem. We have come up with a chattering kind of a problem. People are saying: "I think this" or "I think that". However, when the average Canadian thinks the entire issue through, the question that they will be able to answer is: Would I actually telephone my brother, my sister, my cousin or my friend in Toronto to see how things went before I cast my vote? The answer dominantly will be no.

Here we have a little wee, tiny, minuscule perceived problem that is now being answered by the government in a very ham-handed way. It is going to change the way in which the political process occurs on the west coast in comparison with central Canada. That is indeed unfortunate.

It is an example of the flaws in the bill. As essential as some parts of the bill are, in actual fact it is going to change voting patterns in ways that we cannot even define at this time and only as a result of trying to respond to a perceived problem. It is unfortunate that the Liberals continue to use the House as a rubber stamp and have shoved this through under closure.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his previous intervention and also for allowing me to speak for half his time.

I would like to congratulate the government for bringing in Bill C-63. It addresses some of the concerns that Reform has been putting forward. It changes the way in which elections are handled in this country. There are also a number of grave concerns that we have.

Certainly extending the 11-day vacancy period after somebody quits and a byelection needs to be called is a great disadvantage to the parties that are not in power and certainly a great advantage to the government. The 11 days should be extended to at least 30 days, or perhaps even 45 days, to give the parties who are not in power a chance to put together a reasonable election strategy for that byelection. Eleven days enables the government in power to call a snap election and then to manipulate the current system by allowing strategic byelections to be called to its advantage.

Second, decreasing the electoral period from 47 days to 36 days is a welcome change and enables us to shorten the period of time that exists before the election day. I would also like to congratulate the government on enabling enumeration to take place so we have a permanent election list which is going to save taxpayers a lot of money. That is something which we in Reform completely support.

However, as my counterpart from the Kootenays said, it is extremely important to remove gender because if anybody gets that list, he or she can manipulate the situation. It would enable somebody to identify single women living alone. As a security issue that is certainly important.

All is not rosy with this bill. It contains some measures of which we do not approve. First, the implementation of this bill is far, far too early. When we were supporting this bill we did this in good faith, keeping with the idea that the bill would give all the political parties a fair amount of time to accommodate that within their election strategy. The government in its heavy-handed fashion has chosen to implement this bill in the spring of 1997.

One may say cynically that is politics. The government has to take into consideration the fact that politics may be what it is but at the end of the day we are here to represent the people and to ensure

the people are going to have their democratic rights honoured. This bill does not do that.

We also feel, particularly coming from British Columbia, that the early closure of the polls in B.C. does a huge disservice to the people of that province and of Alberta. Many people work 12 hour days. For example, nurses in hospitals often work from seven in the morning until seven in the evening. Those people will not be able to get out and vote if the polls are closing at 7 and 7.30. Therefore, this aspect of the bill seriously compromises the ability of many Canadians, in particular those living in British Columbia, to have their democratic rights honoured. After all, voting is a democratic right we all share. Many have fought to preserve and enshrine that right within the country, a country that is wonderful and free. However, this bill does not prevent that from happening.

The government also cannot change the rules of the game in mid-stride. What would be fair and equitable not only to the people here but also to all Canadians is to enable this bill to be introduced after the next federal election toward the fall of 1997.

Another aspect which would have shown a great deal of fairness would be to have fixed election dates. We do not have that. It does a great disservice to Canadians and gives an inordinate amount of power to the prime minister of the day.

Fixed election dates would enable all political parties and Canadians to know whether their democratic rights are going to be honoured and when the election is going to be called. It changes the dynamics and enables the public to have a greater amount of power than the present situation where the prime minister of the day controls when the country will have an election.

Another aspect that the government could have shown a great deal of magnanimity about is the issue of referenda, something that we in the Reform Party have championed ever since we came here. Referenda enable the Canadian public to truly exert their democratic will on this House. Referenda will remove power from the Prime Minister's office, remove power from this House and give it to those who should have it the most and that is the people.

Rarely is this tool ever introduced. It needs to be introduced far more. It does not necessarily have to cost more money. Piggy-backing referenda on top of national elections would enable a lot of fundamental questions to be answered and truly enable the Canadian people to be represented within the House in a much more equitable way. That is not happening now.

As I have said before many times, power in this country does not exist in this House. We live an illusion, a house of cards, because a vast amount of power is centred in the hands of the Prime Minister's office, a few cabinet ministers and some of the captains of industry. That is where all the major legislative proposals and initiatives are put forward. The rest of this House has to cower underneath that, for those who do not are hammered by the existing whip structure that we have, which is really a perversion of the Westminster system.

The public needs to know this. I believe that the only real time that members exercise their democratic will is every four or five years when we have an election.

In between elections little democratic will is exerted. On the surface it is exerted through committees but by and large committees and members of Parliament, the elected tools of the public, could be far more effective if members and committees were allowed to better represent the Canadian people by giving them far more leniency, far more power, far more ability to address their constituents' concerns and also to be answerable to them.

The issue of recall has not been mentioned which would have been of value. We have a recall system in British Columbia that is by and large unworkable. The Prime Minister could have demonstrated the promise that he made before being elected that he would make this House more democratic. One of those ways would be to give the power to the people to be able to remove an elected member of Parliament that was not doing his or her job. Right now we do not have that, but our country desperately needs it.

The public would have a great deal more respect for the government if the government instituted a very effective and reasonable structure of recall.

I was at the PQ convention in Quebec last weekend. I must say that I was very impressed with the discourse which took place there and the civility of it. I found it interesting that many of the people represented at the PQ convention want the same things that the Reform Party has been putting forward in its plan A which is some reasonable decentralization, to strengthen the federal government where it is doing a good job but to strengthen the provinces to do what they do best.

The inaction of this and previous federal governments has seriously compromised the ability to keep the country together by not addressing that issue and also by not building bridges between the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada. I ask hon. members on both sides of the House to please take heed of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today and to support Bill C-63 as it has evolved during the positive debate and study. Having chaired the committee study and having been a party to the debate in the Chamber, I would like to speak to the perception that this bill

has been rushed and that opposition concerns have not been given adequate hearing. Before I address these concerns, I would like to respond to some misconceptions about the impartiality of Elections Canada.

My colleague from Bellechasse suggested this morning that there was collusion between Elections Canada and the government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Elections Canada officials have been available to the House and as importantly, to the committee on procedure and House affairs to help us arrive at a good bill which Elections Canada will then administer.

The government would have been remiss in not consulting Elections Canada officials for their expertise on this bill. In fact, as my colleagues opposite will remember, it was Elections Canada officials when they appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee in March this year who prepared a draft piece of legislation which formed part of the genesis of the bill before us today.

I respectfully suggest that the member is misguided in suggesting that the presence in the government lobby of Elections Canada officials would prove his allegation. The truth of the matter is that these officials have been available to all members for the past two days of debate. I might also point out that my hon. colleagues from Bellechasse and Calgary West on numerous occasions have had the opportunity to discuss points of clarification with Elections Canada officials in the government lobby.

With regard to the major thrust of my speech, a careful review of milestones in this phase of reform of the elections system will help illuminate the actual process the bill has followed. Members of the procedure and House affairs committee are well aware of the extensive work that was carried out beginning in 1991 with the Lortie commission.

As colleagues in the House know, this body consulted widely and heard from many witnesses. In their extensive report the commissioners recommended a permanent register and commended for further consideration the concept of shorter voting hours. This latter point was complemented by commission reflections on public attitudes toward shorter campaigns.

Committee deliberations by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform started in 1992 after the Lortie report was received. This work culminated in Bill C-114 which was passed in 1993.

We then moved to the 1993 general election. Elections Canada was able to reuse electoral lists from the 1992 referendum to build the election register as a result of an amendment contained in Bill C-114. This eliminated the need for door to door enumeration in all provinces except Quebec. This was a real cost saving and demonstrated that the list could be reused thereby lending support for the concept of a register.

The next year Elections Canada began to work in earnest on the elections project. Data sources and systems were considered and the provinces and territories were consulted and contacted. I should reiterate the continuing work with and interest of these other levels of government in this cost saving initiative.

My predecessor in the chair of the committee on procedure and House affairs invited Elections Canada officials to several committee discussions which began in April 1995 when the committee gave its concurrence to further work on this issue. Without getting rhetorical, this does not sound like a bill that is being rushed.

December 1995 found Elections Canada back before the committee to provide a progress report and findings. As my colleagues opposite know, when I assumed the chair of the procedure and House affairs committee, I was pleased to chair a meeting in March 1996 where we received the feasibility report on the register project. We had a good discussion in committee. Members were asked to pursue the debate in their respective caucuses and to report back on these discussions.

My personal objective and our objective as a government was to be able to provide additional guidance to the chief electoral officer. I felt this would be important since the feasibility report raised the possibility of a shorter electoral campaign and the prospect of an enumeration outside an election period, a major initiative which is the thrust to build the register and to permit a 36 day campaign. But the feedback was limited. An opportunity seems to have been missed to broaden the consultation on an issue so important to elected representatives in this House now and in the future.

Following the presentation of the feasibility study and the draft bill presented by Elections Canada, a committee of senior officials began to review this matter and allied issues, privacy being one. This work has contributed to the bill we have before us.

The bill was introduced and caucuses were briefed by the leader of the government in the House and by the chief electoral officer. The bill was referred to the committee before second reading. As members are well aware, the government has three legislative paths available to it when introducing a bill: a committee can be asked to develop the bill; a committee can choose the traditional process; or, a bill can be referred to committee before second reading.

Members will know that Bill C-63 was referred to committee before second reading. The fact that the leader of the government is the sponsor of the bill is entirely normal. As the member for Bellechasse pointed out in his much appreciated comments this morning, Bill C-69 was also sponsored by the leader of the government.

The referral to committee before second reading indicates that while the government has made certain decisions about the policy it wished the House to consider, the government House leader and

the government as a whole were prepared to give serious consideration to members' comments about possible improvements to this bill. Referral to committee before second reading both invites those comments and creates the procedural room where necessary to proceed with wide ranging amendments.

Members will know the process has worked in this case. A total of 33 amendments have been made to this bill as a result of this committee process. I will speak to these in a moment. The point is that the bill is better for these amendments. The process chosen by the House leader to study the bill contributed directly to the acceptance of those amendments. Members on all sides of the House who have contributed to these and other suggestions should take pride in their involvement in this process.

As a result of the committee work, the amendments which were made meet express concerns. These amendments include: a provision for staggered voting hours, which came from my colleague from Vancouver; a provision to use provincial lists to build the register; a provision answering concerns of the privacy commissioner and the broadcast arbitrator; a coming into force provision; and a provision to distribute the annual list earlier and to provide a definition of how the list could be used by parties and candidates.

I would like to briefly touch on some of this morning's debate on the use of provincial lists. To reinforce what the leader of the government said, I reiterate that provincial lists will be used to build the first federal register as long as they meet the criteria outlined this morning.

Bill C-63 has from its introduction provided that these lists be used to maintain the register. As a result of debate at report stage and second reading, additional amendments, 19 in total, were made which I believe contribute to the effectiveness of this bill. These new amendments include: provisions concerning the use of gender and date of birth information; revisions to the staggered voting hours; an 11 day waiting period for the calling of byelections to recognize the different dynamics occurring in byelection events; and provisions to provide preliminary electoral lists following the planned last door to door enumeration.

May I also remind the House that we have had an opportunity both in the House and in committee to consider the bill that was brought forward by my colleague from Vancouver East. Any process can be improved but in the case of this bill, we have worked together and we have improved the original bill together. I appreciate that my colleagues on the committee acknowledge this. As my colleague said this morning in quoting an American jurist, we have moved with deliberate speed.

May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. colleague from Bellechasse for his thoughtful and helpful comments. He has worked diligently on this bill throughout and he has been open to amendments, even this morning.

The hon. member for Calgary West also deserves our thanks and appreciation. His comments and suggestions in part are reflected in this bill. I believe he has made an important contribution.

I also want to thank our own Liberal colleagues on the committee who have worked diligently, particularly the member for Stormont-Dundas, to bring together the forces that bring us all to this House. Sometimes they are forces of disagreement but no doubt they are forces to put forward good legislation, legislation that has thoughtful and wise amendments and amendments that have come from experience and policy directions of every region of our country representing the linguistic duality and geographic size of our country. I salute him and the other members of our committee.

The government has listened to the comments about this bill and accommodations have been made. This is in keeping with our longstanding approach on electoral issues of providing all members with an opportunity to contribute to developing electoral policy on these particular issues as well as on others.

In conclusion, we are asked to vote on a bill that will make important, practical and desirable changes to the way Canadians vote for those of us asked to represent their interests in this House. I look forward to the earliest implementation of these changes that will modernize and improve Canada's electoral system.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that my colleague who just spoke has so many more notes available to him, I wonder if there might be unanimous consent to permit him to carry on with his speech.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent for the parliamentary secretary to continue with his speech?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I hear a no, actually from the same side as the parliamentary secretary.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate all day. I have a very simple question. Why did the government decide that the perceived problem of voters in the west, knowing what eastern voters have decided, could best be solved by putting the western voters at a disadvantage?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, but the time has expired. Pursuant to an order made on Monday, November 25 it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?