Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2000

Canada Elections Act

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 692

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from February 14 consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Group No. 2.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

When the item was last debated the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville proposed amendments to Motions Nos. 90, 94 and 123. The Chair has determined that these amendments are in order and a revised voting chart is available at the table.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we have to rise today to speak to this bill under the effects of closure but we will do our best.

I rise today to speak on the report stage of Bill C-2, an act which repeals and replaces, inadequately in my view, the Canada Elections Act.

Initially, when I first heard that the government was going to repeal the Canada Elections Act, I was encouraged, for that was something our party has taken a firm position on. In fact, it can be found as a policy in our blue book, where it states under the section entitled Parliamentary Reform, subsection A:

The Reform Party supports repealing sections of the Canada Elections Act which make MPs beholden to their national party executive or leader rather than their constituents.

The Reform Party has taken a strong stand on political reform, believing that for too long Canada's political system has been out of touch with the common voter. We believe it is time to restore the confidence of Canadians in Canada's political system and federal representatives to make sound decisions about their future. We will do this through the introduction of real democratic representation in parliament and accountability for parliamentarians.

I firmly believe that it is time elected representatives be held accountable to the people who elect them and that the duty of elected members to their constituents should supersede their obligations to their political parties.

Sadly, as I learn more about the government's intentions, first in the form of Bill C-83 in the first session of this parliament, and now Bill C-2 in this session, I see that the Liberal government and, indeed, some of the other parties in the House, do not share Reform's commitment to openness and transparency in government.

Before I continue in any detail, I first want to compliment my colleague, the member for Vancouver North. I congratulate him for his tenacity, for his unfailing commitment to the principles of democratic reform that I outlined previously and for his undying belief in the equality of all people, regardless of their political affiliation. This member has almost single-handedly exposed this bill for the farce that it is, and I recognize him for that.

The efforts made by the government to change electoral legislation is inadequate. It has become clear to members of the House and members of the public that the government sent this bill to committee before second reading hoping to keep it hidden from public spotlight and thus isolate it from any meaningful public comment.

This arrogance is evidenced by the fact that no significant amendments were made in the committee in spite of numerous suggestions made by the official opposition, third party and media witnesses and witnesses from other political parties that are not represented in the House today.

It was with relief that I noted that some small parties did have an opportunity to make representation to the committee. Too often these parties, and the Canadians who voted for them, are ignored by the traditional parties and the mainstream national media. In fact, the elections acts in Canada are so biased toward the parties with seats in the federal or provincial legislatures that it is normal for any changes to be slipped through quietly on a Friday afternoon lest any public scrutiny expose those political hijinks for what they are.

This time, however, Canadians are fortunate to have the Reform Party filling the role of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, and we will not let the government pull the wool over the eyes and the rug out from under the feet of the Canadian public. We will remain true to our democratic roots and true to Canadians.

In spite of repealing the current legislation, this new legislation repeats many of the same mistakes of the Canada Elections Act, doing nothing to address serious public concerns involving campaign financing, party registration requirements, the timing of byelections, third party spending issues and patronage appointments within Elections Canada. It should come as no surprise then when one discovers that these flaws were retained because of the advantage they give to the ruling party.

I want to speak to the issue of third party spending, which I believe goes beyond the context of this legislation and addresses the broader issue of free speech.

The government appears to be basing its tenuous position on a controversial decision made by the supreme court in Libman v Quebec which struck down the Quebec referendum act's third party spending limit as too restrictive, but left the door open to legislatures and parliament to determine reasonable spending limits that were not only desirable but constitutional.

However, this decision was not made in the context of a federal election where voters are faced with a multitude of issues, but in the context of a provincial referendum where the answer is either yes or no. This difference is very obvious to members of Canada's legal community, no matter what their politics are.

This issue has been before the courts on several occasions in Alberta and in both cases the court ruled that imposing spending limits on third parties is unconstitutional. A recent court case in British Columbia also addressed the issue of third party spending and decided that there were certain circumstances in which the goal of fairness in elections would support an argument for third party advertising.

If in a future election campaign all of the political parties were to agree on a significant policy point then the lack of third party advertising would mean that the people would be limited to the views of the major political parties and media commentators. The third party spending limits would effectively silence citizens who wish to express contrary views.

The Liberals must know that the bill does not have a chance of withstanding a constitutional challenge but I believe they have an ulterior motive in introducing the bill.

It is not a secret that the previous Liberal and Tory regimes have felt the sting of third party spending. The National Citizens' Coalition has publicly criticized the generous MP pension plan during election times and the Canadian Police Association paid for billboards that pilloried Liberal candidates for being soft on crime.

The government feels that the legislation is a way to level the playing field at election time, saying that if candidates have spending limits, lobby groups should also be limited. What is level about limiting lobby groups to a mere $150,000, of which only $3,000 can be targeted to any single riding, when the total election spending limit for the federal Liberal Party is close to $30 million?

Far from levelling the playing field, the legislation gives a huge advantage to the Liberal government. Not only can the Liberals outspend their nearest political party opponents by a margin of nearly three to one, they can spend tens of millions of federal taxpayers' dollars to pat themselves on the back in the months preceding the election.

Restricting the ability of third parties to counter the barrage of government propaganda is an affront to the democratic traditions upon which this country was built.

Notwithstanding the fact that these limits are a clear attempt to muzzle free speech, there is not even evidence to prove that limiting campaign expenses influences the outcome of elections.

Let us consider the following: In 1993 Canadians were suffering under a bloated and arrogant government, one devoid of any new ideas and fundamentally out of touch with the electorate. This party had the highest spending limit of any political party, spending tens of millions of dollars only to return just two MPs to the House of Commons.

On the other hand, a young and vibrant new political party was offering common sense solutions to many challenging issues. It advocated such things as fiscal responsibility, social responsibility, reform of the federation and democratic accountability. This grassroots movement, funded by the $10 and $20 contributions of grassroots Canadians, sent 52 MPs to Ottawa.

Another example is the Charlottetown accord where the yes side outspent the no side by a margin of 10 to 1 and still lost.

These examples illustrate very clearly that there is absolutely no evidence at all that spending more money than an opponent guarantees a win.

Therefore, I submit that this is nothing but a bald-faced attempt by the governing party to curtail the freedom of expression of private citizens so that their views cannot be advanced forcefully enough to compete with the views of the media moguls and political parties. The government simply does not want to be reminded of its failures, weaknesses and broken promises during an election campaign, and that is enough reason for this bill to be scrapped.

In drafting this bill, the government virtually ignored the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The government also ignored several decisions of various appeal courts and the Supreme Court of Canada. The government is very inconsistent in its approach to court rulings. Given its past reluctance to act against court decisions, by introducing this bill the government is saying that it is okay for the courts to make child pornography legal and to allocate access to fisheries according to race, but do not touch the provisions of the election act that favour the ruling party.

The government refused to hold committee meetings in cities across Canada. The public must know more about this bill.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-2. However, before I do, I want to commend my colleague from North Vancouver who has done a tremendous amount of work on the bill. He has researched it at length and has come up with very serious flaws in the bill. It needs to be completely rejigged.

As my colleague, who just spoke before me, said, it is weighted to the governing side, in this case the Liberals but it could be another government at another time. What we want is a neutral act, an act that is fair to all sides of the House and to all people in an election.

It does not have the support of the public at the moment. It does not have the support of the Chief Electoral Officer. It does not have the support of all the members in the House. I believe that is critical. As I said earlier, we need to have a neutral bill, a bill that all people, including the Chief Electoral Officer, support. A neutral bill just makes common sense. We are talking about a 19th century bill when we are in the 21st century. It is bizarre that the government would want this. It shows that it is still a dinosaur trying to practise old style politics.

The committee should have travelled throughout Canada and people should have been able to talk to the government and opposition parties about the bill but that did not happen.

As my colleague has said, there are a number of areas of major concern: campaign financing, party registration requirements, timing of byelections. These are all up for grabs. Basically, they all weigh on the side of the government, and that is clearly wrong.

The courts have already struck down a number of points that are in the bill. Why would we have points within a bill that we know the courts will reject? That is ridiculous.

We have already had groups come forward saying that this was ridiculous. The National Citizens' Coalition has said “We're going to challenge it”. It will be challenged. Why would we spend our effort in the House producing a bill that is not up to speed and one which we know will be challenged in court? Not only do we know it will be challenged, we also know it will lose. This is nuts.

One of the points I would like to talk about is the blackout poll. It is certain to be struck down. Court decisions have already said that it will not fly. They have already made rulings on it yet the government insists on putting this part of it in the bill. Why would it do that?

Then there is the registered party status requirement of 50 candidates. That is crazy. Two or three candidates should be enough, or pick a number such as a dozen. Most people are ready for 12. That is reasonable. Again the government is trying to force the playing field away from the average ordinary Canadian.

On the spending limits, think about the dollars the Liberals have in their pockets. I believe the last figure was $30 million that they can spend on campaigns. They want to limit third party intervention, whether it be from police officers on justice issues, or from health care professionals, nurses and doctors, on our health program which we know is in trouble. At election time, these people through their organizations want to put their points forward, yet the government is saying “We do not want to have third party intervention because it will be against us”. Again the government is trying to limit it.

And there is the actual machinery of running an election. Each of the 301 ridings has a returning officer. Returning officers should be appointed on merit; they should not be political appointments. There have been a number of situations where persons are either biased or just incompetent, not good at their jobs. We want the best returning officers we can have. The Chief Electoral Officer is there to make sure that the election machinery is run well, is fair and the results are credible. Bill C-2 does everything to fly in the face of that.

Something which is not in the bill is fixed election dates. That needs to be explored. Nobody is saying that the U.S. is perfect but it does have fixed election dates. It is known that four years down the road there will be an election for president in November.

In our country the governing party, whoever happens to be in power at the time, weighs all the situations and does the polls to see when the wind is in its favour to call an election. That is wrong. An election should be held as municipal elections are, on fixed dates, so we all know when the next election will be.

There are glaring points in the bill, issues such as the courts already striking down sections of the bill. We know it will not pass. We know it will be challenged and rejected in the courts. Why would it be put in the bill? It is folly. We want a neutral bill.

I hope the bill can be redrafted to the point where it is a neutral bill and does not favour any party but favours all Canadians. In that way our party would be able to support the bill. The way it is now there is no way in the world we can support it.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act.

The very nature of Canada as a free and democratic country should be accurately reflected in a bill such as this. Unfortunately the government has failed miserably in this task. Rather than a non-partisan bill that will ensure that elections take place on a fair and equitable basis, the government has put forward a bill that creates further disparity and partisanship.

We live in a time when information and technology are moving forward at an incredible pace. As incredible advances take place, the world around us struggles to keep pace. I do not believe this bill fully attempts to keep pace with the communication expectations of Canadians.

I stress communication because that is what politics and indeed the House of Commons should be all about. The process should be a circular one where the electorate chooses their representatives to send a message to Ottawa. That message may be one that endorses past actions and legislation, or it may be one that calls for incredibly drastic change. Over the past number of elections we have seen both of these messages sent to Ottawa.

The next part of the communication network is to ensure that the member adequately represents his or her constituents. Is the member able to communicate the needs of the constituency clearly and concisely to the House of Commons and enact the solutions and legislation that are necessary?

Unfortunately our current system of governance seldom takes opposition members' points of view into account. This is true both here in the House and in our committee work. It is frustrating both to the members here and the electorate that voted for those members to see their good ideas thwarted because of partisan politics.

We have seen this in many instances of late. We have seen the government stall and hand-pick witnesses. We have watched as the government forced time allocation in one form or another over 60 times. Time allocation is only a means to stop opposition members from having a legitimate opportunity to express the concerns and the needs of their constituents. The government has grievously abused this procedure and should hang its head in shame.

Contrary to the thoughts of many, democracy does not rule here in the House. The government whip rules over that side of the House. Even with the slim majority number of seats representing only 38% of the people in Canada who voted, the elite few in and around the Prime Minister's office rule the country.

Note that I said rule and not run, for I believe that the Liberals rule in an autocratic manner. I know there are members on that side of the House who have disagreed with what the Prime Minister has said. I know that there are those who do not wish to vote in the government prescribed way. I have watched as these same members felt that they could not vote against the party line and thus were not able to adequately express their constituents' feelings on a given topic.

The close of the communication loop is for the government, after truly listening to the electorate, to be able to adequately pass new or revised legislation and communicate this back to constituents. All too often, especially with this government, it makes the claim that it is listening to the people only to turn around and do something exactly opposite to the will of the people.

I need only cite the recent deplorable manner in which the justice minister refused to listen to the people of Canada on their feelings about child pornography. Hundreds of thousands of people have signed petitions calling for the use of the notwithstanding clause thus negating the unnecessary cost and waste of time that has dragged on for over a full year. Canadians will not stand for that kind of abuse and the subsequent exploitation of our children while we stand around and do nothing.

For over a full year the justice minister stated that child pornography would not need to have the notwithstanding clause used, while those of us from British Columbia are still waiting for real action to take place. Right now and for over the past year the possession of child pornography has been legal in B.C. That is right, legal.

This is the ostrich method approach. And what is that? Government members stick their heads in the sand and wait for the danger to pass. Well I have news for them. The danger is mounting: child pornography, HRDC boondoggles, the hepatitis C tainted blood debacle, the Nisga'a agreement, the new elections act and a host of others. These dangers will not pass away. The only thing that will pass them by is the electorate in the next election.

The voters should be given the right to recall their current member of parliament if they feel they are being inadequately represented. If enough people in their riding agree with them, then the member loses his or her seat and the electorate has an opportunity to select again. This would ensure that the electorate is not forgotten after the election is over, as the government does.

There are a whole series of other items which I believe should be addressed under this draft bill, but time will only allow me the opportunity to speak to a few of them.

Currently the returning officers are political appointees of the governor in council. This defeats the whole premise of a non-partisan election process. The Chief Electoral Officer himself stated during committee meetings that it was critical he be given the power to hire returning officers based upon merit.

The electorate of Canada should not have to be concerned with the Prime Minister tainting the election proceedings through his appointment of returning officers. If it were not such a serious issue, one would think that such a scene could only come out of some British farce on television.

It is most interesting that Canada is viewed as being a world leader when emerging third world countries are setting up their own electoral systems. Of note is that Elections Canada always recommends against a patronage system such as the Canadian method. It is indeed unfortunate that the Prime Minister is not able to take a lesson from Elections Canada.

One other item I would like to bring to the attention of the House is the selection of election day based on the whim of the Prime Minister when it is politically expedient. The premise of doling out cash and other pre-election goodies is so blatant that everyone is fully able to see exactly what is going on. When the Prime Minister's chequebook comes out, patronage appointments flow and extra HRDC grants are approved and announced by ministers who just happen to be in the neighbourhood, we all know that something is up: the election is in the air.

I question the government, why not set a date for every four years that is fair for everyone? The government enjoys a distinct advantage in knowing when the election call will come. If we believe in a system of fairness as I believe Canadians do, then we must ensure that the system is transparent. Bill C-2 would have been an excellent opportunity for the government to show Canadians that, but it has failed Canadians miserably.

I could go on and on and speak about the way the government sent the bill to committee before second reading thus keeping it out of the public spotlight. I could mention that the committee did not allow any significant amendments. We could go further and discuss the fact that the act is biased toward those parties that have seats in the House, thus limiting the governance choices available to the public.

In closing, I wish to put the government on notice that the electorate of Canada will remember Bill C-2 as one more partisan bill by the Liberal government. The electorate notes that the government will do anything in its power to retain its power. However the electorate also understands that through the retention of power by the Liberal government the electorate's choices are limited.

I indicated at the start of my speech that communication was a key part of the governance system. Unfortunately this government feels it is able to fertilize the rest of Canada with anything it sees fit and that Canada will flourish. I have news for the government. Canada is flourishing in spite of the action of this government. My heart aches when I consider what Canadians could achieve if they did not have to endure the millstone of the Liberal government around their necks.

For all those reasons, I am unable to support Bill C-2 in its current form.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to speak to Bill C-2 is both an honour and a privilege. At the same time there is a certain sadness associated with it because one would have thought that a democratically motivated government would bring to bear legislation that reflects a commitment to democratic principles.

I wish to address three points in my presentation this afternoon. The first has to do with patronage appointments to prime positions in the electoral system. The second is the requirements in the proposed act for registering a party to have full political status. The third is voter identification.

In my presentation I wish to recognize in a special way the contribution of the Reform Party critic on the committee in the preparation of this attack on the bill. He did a good job analysing the provisions of the act and also gave us a clear indication of what ought to be happening.

The government is able to get away with as much as it does partly because there is a certain element of disinterest or apathy among the people of Canada who are not taking the time to recognize what is really at stake. Patronage appointment of key election officials is part of the problem. I would like to get into this in considerable detail.

At the present time returning officers are political appointees of the governor in council. The governor in council is run by the Prime Minister. This is outrageous in what is supposed to be a non-partisan electoral organization. The voters of Canada should not have to put up with the Prime Minister appointing Liberal Party hacks to prime positions.

The Chief Electoral Officer said during the committee hearings that it is critical, and he underlined the word critical, that he or she be given the power to hire returning officers based on merit. He also said that he would ideally like to adopt the provisions contained in a private member's bill put forward by the Reform Party critic which would eliminate patronage at Elections Canada at all levels, but that was ignored.

The province of Quebec to its credit already has a system of merit selection for its returning officers. There is no reason that Canada should persist with a system of patronage appointments.

Under questioning during question period the minister said that there was nothing wrong with the present system of patronage because appointments in six provinces use the same system and therefore it is right. Just because six provinces make the same mistake does not make the system right. Canadians would rather have a 100% non-partisan electoral system in the provinces and in Canada than a patronage system. When Elections Canada helps third world emerging nations to set up their electoral systems it always recommends against a patronage ridden system like we find in Canada.

I found it most interesting that in committee under questioning the Chief Electoral Officer made it clear that he would not recommend this elections act to a third world country or an emerging democracy. His exact words were:

Obviously when I go out on the international scene I do not recommend that 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 appointment of returning officers under the present system is an anachronism.

That came out of the mouth of the Chief Electoral Officer. If that is not an indictment of our system, what could be?

Elections Canada has repeatedly asked the government to release it from the system of patronage, but that has not happened. The Chief Electoral Officer also indicated that it was extremely difficult for him to get rid of incompetent returning officers because he had to convince the Prime Minister to dismiss the employee. The Prime Minister does not want to dump one of his party faithful so things have to be almost in a state of emergency before action is taken.

There are 301 constituencies and the Prime Minister is purported to know the qualifications and competencies of each one of those people. It is an insult to suggest to the people of Canada that they cannot choose or that the Chief Electoral Officer cannot choose people based on merit who could do the job of returning officer in the particular constituencies where they are needed.

The system of patronage allows the parties to appoint people into positions. Often the understanding is that these people donate their earnings to the party that appointed them. That is filled with all kinds of difficulties that deny the democratic process to operate.

Formal competitions for returning officer positions should definitely be open to all Canadians, not just to a chosen few. The assistant returning officers and poll clerks should also be selected on the basis of ability, experience and impartiality. Those positions should be publicly advertised. The current system of political appointments is contrary to the notion of a non-partisan electoral system.

Opposition MPs on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs supported the Reform position, but the Liberals opposed it, proving that the government's position is politically motivated and not democratically motivated.

We have a democracy based on a philosophy of fairness, a philosophy that says the people shall speak and this shall be government of the people by the people for the people. It is not by the Liberals for the Liberals and in their best interest. It is time we had a change in the electoral act to take care of that.

My second point has to do with the requirements for registered party status. In March an Ontario court struck down the sections of the Canada Elections Act which require a party to run 50 candidates in an election to remain on the register and to have its candidates listed with party affiliation on the ballot. The court indicated that two candidates should be sufficient to be recognized as a party.

In a fine compromise, the Reform Party critic suggested that we make it 12. The number 12 is consistent with the House rules for party status and therefore has some logic in its application. The number 50 is arbitrary and has no basis in logic. If the government had bothered to consult with the affected parties an acceptable compromise could have been reached, but that was not the case.

The people of Canada were not consulted with regard to the provisions of the act. They were not asked if this was what they wanted. The government just decided what it was going to do, whether or not it made sense and was consistent with democratic philosophy and democratic principles. Those things were ignored. It is simply there to give advantage to the ruling party in Canada.

The minister has said that changing the 50 candidate rule while the appeal was in process would probably be questionable both as an idea and perhaps even ethically. He was referring to the court decision and saying that while it was in process we should not deal with this matter.

The minister is saying it would be wrong to go along with the court ruling. Yet, when the court decided that possession of child pornography should be legal in B.C. the government said the opposite. The government said it would be wrong not to go along with the ruling until the appeal process was complete. This is gross inconsistency. What kind of government do we have?

At one point we have to move ahead because the court has ruled in a particular way and we have to go along with it. The next time we say we had better not do that while the court is still dealing with the matter. What is going on here? Is it any wonder people are saying that we do not have a justice system in Canada, that we have a legal system. These are very serious problems. The minister also said in committee:

Obviously, given that I'm the minister who suggested to have such an appeal, I'm of the opinion that it works just swell the way it is.

If he thinks it is working well, no wonder he does not want any changes. He will not propose any changes.

I have only touched on two points and already the Chair has indicated that my time has run out. These are only two points in a major electoral act which will affect the way elections are run, the way parties are registered and the way voters will be identified as being eligible to vote.

Every Canadian should be reading this act and asking themselves if they are getting a legal position, a piece of legislation that guarantees democracy, or if they are getting legislation that continues to promote a dictatorship between elections.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on Motion No. 87 in Group No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

A recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 89, 91 and 95 to 99.

The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 90. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?