Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of members to the House of Commons, repealing other Acts relating to elections and making consequential amendments to other Acts.
This bill was read for the first time on October 14, 1999. After second reading, it was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The bill is back in the House today at report stage.
At this point in the parliamentary process, one concludes from reading the report that the review by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was not very fruitful, since what the government talked about initially was an in-depth reform. Let us take a closer look at what has been accomplished and at some of the reasons the Bloc Quebecois will not be voting in favour of this bill.
The Leader of the Government in the House wants this bill passed at third reading as quickly as possible, even if it means imposing another gag order, something that has become the trademark of this government.
The logic of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons must be clearly understood. Once the bill has received royal assent, the chief electoral officer will need at least six months to implement it. And, since the Liberals think this bill favours them more than the current legislation does, they would very much like to use it for the next general elections. Accordingly, it must come into force as soon as possible, thus allowing the Prime Minister to call if need be early elections, which some might consider premature.
The committee met about 15 times and heard over 30 witnesses, in studying the proposed amendments to improve the bill and to bring about an in-depth reform.
Despite all that, one has to conclude that the government may have made a few cosmetic changes but has completely failed to make the in-depth reform it had indicated it wanted.
The government missed a wonderful opportunity to give more transparency to campaign funds by reviewing the rules governing the financing of political parties by corporations, in order to limit their contributions.
In 1998, the bank lobby contributed $815,000 to the federal political parties and, out of this amount, $400,000 was given to the Liberals. How can one think that, by adopting a $5,000 limit on corporate contributions, the Bloc Quebecois has given up its principles?
It would also have been essential to amend paragraph 428(2) concerning trust funds belonging to registered parties. The transparency here leaves much to be desired. I will remind members of what Allan Taylor, the former president of the Royal Bank of Canada, said during a speech on February 26, 1991, and I quote:
—financing of political parties by businesses did not encourage democratization and public participation in politics.
The government also missed a wonderful opportunity to review the process of appointing election officers. When what is involved is implementation of the legislation on which the democratic system of the country is based, the process must be above all suspicion and there must be the greatest possible transparency.
Last October 28, when Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, he said the following:
When I go out on the international scene I do not recommend that the Canadian system be emulated where it comes to the appointment of returning officers. I clearly indicate, as I do in Canada, that the present system is an anachronism.
Mr. Kingsley feels it is imperative for the method of appointing returning officers to be changed, so that they are appointed in a competitive process in order to ensure their total independence from the government and to give the appearance of fairness and neutrality toward all party candidates involved.
As for Former Chief Electoral Officer for Quebec Pierre F. Côté, when he appeared before that same committee on November 16, 1999, he said:
In a democratic system, not only must democracy be served, it must also appear that democracy has been served.
Finally, volume I of the report by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, better known as the Lortie Commission, in addressing the need for independence of election officers reaches the same conclusion on page 483:
A cornerstone of public confidence in any democratic system of representative government is an electoral process that is administered efficiently and an electoral law that is enforced impartially. Securing public trust requires that election officials responsible for administration and enforcement be independent of the government of the day and not subject to partisan influence.
So, it would have been better for these persons to be chosen following a competition establishing that they have the necessary expertise to assume these functions instead of being chosen because of their affiliation to the political party in power.
The Bloc Quebecois proposed amendments to put an end to the control that the governor in council has over the appointment of these people, but the government rejected them. I am forced therefore to acknowledge that Bill C-2 does not contribute to promoting the democratization of the electoral process. On the contrary, the governor in council retains unacceptable power over the selection of election officers.
At report stage, we moved two amendments to clauses 13 and 14 so that at least the appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer, the person responsible the application of the Elections Act, would be done differently to reduce government control of over this appointment.
The object is to ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer is appointed with the support of at least the majority of the opposition members. So, we propose that the Chief Electoral Officer be appointed by a resolution of the House of Commons approved by the opposition parties and not simply by the party in power.
The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who was one of the biggest organizers of the love-in in Montreal a few days before the 1995 referendum, should know that love is a two-way street and that actions speak louder than words.
Once again, the federal government had the opportunity to follow the lead of Quebec, which has put in place a system of public competitions for the appointment of the main electoral officers. But no. For the French Power, what matters is to badmouth Quebecers to gain popularity across Canada. Quebec French Power in Ottawa will never acknowledge what the Quebec government does right. It would mean lose its legitimacy and becoming suspect in the rest of Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois wants a democratic and transparent federal elections act. It wants an act without any appearance of conflict of interest. Once again I am very disappointed in the government. What has become of the Liberals? Where are their integrity, their honesty, their keen sense of democracy? Why should we stay in a country whose government has only one goal: to stay in power no matter what and at any cost?
Why should we not have our own country, a country promoting at least four values that no longer prevail on Parliament Hill, namely honour, transparency, democracy and, above all, respect for the citizens?
Also the government missed a great opportunity to deal with the issue of voters identification. When the bill was before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the Bloc Quebecois asked for a voters identification process to be included in the legislation. The main reason for such a process being to prevent individuals from usurping someone else's voting right. Once again, the government denied our request.
Give the devil his due. The government made some changes to the transitional provisions to give political parties more time before the new rules apply in case the bill would come into force after June 30.
Clearly, when an amendment favours the Liberal Party, the government House leader does not hesitate to act quickly. But when we are talking about an amendment to foster transparency, democracy and the respect of citizens, the government House leader remains adamantly opposed to it. He finds all kinds of excuses to turn down the changes we would like to see, putting them off till hell freezes over or until the 12th of never.
Those are many more reasons why we should work hard to promote Quebec's sovereignty.