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.