Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2000

Canada Elections Act

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

That is not true.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

The committee's deliberations, despite the protests of my colleague, the deputy government whip, were hustled through. There was no time allocation, since this is not possible in a committee, but had it been possible to impose a gag order, the government certainly would not have hesitated to do so.

Committee deliberations were hurried up with little or no consideration for the opposition's proposals. A few little cosmetic changes suggested by the opposition were integrated, and they will certainly improve the bill. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

The bill itself is an improvement, albeit a slight one; it does nevertheless represent some improvement over the existing Elections Act. The fact that a few improvements, a few cosmetic changes, have been made to the federal election legislation by the opposition parties has improved it still more.

This represented a unique opportunity for the government to carry out an in-depth reform of the Canadian electoral system, taking into consideration the changes that have taken place, with a view to finally clean up the political act somewhat at the federal level, by integrating a number of proposals from the opposition, the Bloc Quebecois included, on the public funding of political parties. It has refused any in-depth changes.

It has limited itself to superficial changes only, useful but superficial ones. The government has agreed to include the matter of the trusts. This is the first time they have been addressed by the Elections Act; transparency is required about the monies put into trusts, but only during elections.

All of the money that goes into trusts when it is not election time will still remain hidden from the public eye, as it is at present. There are certainly grounds for concern.

Coming back to Group No. 3 amendments on the matter of appointments of returning offices, the government has once again taken refuge behind a lot of fallacious arguments in order to claim that the present way of doing things must not be changed.

When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, to which Bill C-2 was referred, Quebec's former director general of elections, Pierre-F. Côté, who was very closely involved in the establishment of Quebec's electoral system, of democratic institutions that make Quebecers proud and that are recognized all over the world, said that “in a democratic system, not only must democracy be served, it must also appear that democracy has been served”.

I say that the current system, in which returning officers in each riding across Canada are still appointed by the government, deprives the whole process of any appearance that democracy is being served.

In volume I of the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, the Lortie commission, I read the following:

In any democratic system, it is essential that the electoral process be administered efficiently and that the Elections Act be applied impartially. Election officers must deal at arm's length with the government in office and must be protected from any partisan influence.

To be sure, the current situation does not reflect the wish of the Lortie commission, a wish that was echoed by the chief electoral officer himself, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who told the committee, on October 28:

Obviously 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 appointment of returning officers under the present system is an anachronism.

I will conclude by saying that the government is using the fallacious argument that it would take too much personnel to implement such a system, an independent system of appointments—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is really up.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point order. Subsequent to consultations with all parties in the House, I seek unanimous consent to change the name of the mover of Motion No. 62 from the hon. member for Thompson and Highland Valleys to the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to change the name of the mover of Motion No. 62?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was about to conclude. I had only a few words left. I appeal to the generosity of the House for an additional 30 seconds, one minute at most.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to continue for a few more seconds to conclude?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their great generosity.

I simply want to say that the government is using the specious reasoning that too many employees would be needed to implement a more independent system of appointing returning officers, a system that would ensure that returning officers were appointed independently, following an administrative competition to establish their objectivity, impartiality and qualifications.

The government claims that it would take far too many people to implement such a system. The chief electoral officer himself said that such a system would require two people at most.

Once again, I respectfully submit to members of this House that introducing such a system is not too complicated, and that it is being strongly urged by the chief electoral officer, who wants to be able to appoint returning officers and to demote them when it is very clear that they are not qualified to do their job.

I urge all members to vote in favour of provisions designed to ensure that returning officers are appointed in an impartial and independent manner.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the Group No. 3 amendments to Bill C-2, the Canada elections bill. I say it is a pleasure for me because with the enactment of yet another example of time allocation by the government, very few of my colleagues will get the opportunity to address this important piece of legislation. So it is a pleasure and a privilege as it always is to speak in the House, but particularly in this case when the government has enacted time allocation and once again has shut down or severely limited debate on legislation.

I note at the outset of my remarks that this is the 63rd time that time allocation has been used by the government. That is an even worse record, a milestone achieved much more quickly, than that of the Tories in a previous parliament. The reality is that in the 33rd Parliament which commenced on November 5, 1984, the Tories reached their 50th use of time restriction on September 15, 1992, a period of approximately eight years. The 35th Parliament was the first parliament of the mandate of the Liberals and commenced on January 17, 1994. The government reached its 50th use of time restriction on March 23, 1999, almost a year ago, which is a period of just over five years. That gives the viewing public some idea of the comparison.

When the Liberals were in opposition during the two terms of the Mulroney Conservatives, they would rant and rail against the use of time allocation and closure to shut down debate on important legislation. Yet we find that it is business as usual now that the Liberals are in government. In fact it is worse under the present administration.

I notice, Madam Speaker, that you had quite time trying to read all the amendments in Group No. 3. There are some 35 amendments. That gives some indication to the viewing public and those in the House and the gallery of the need for improving the legislation. One must ask the question, if there is that much concern on the part of not just Reformers and the official opposition but all opposition parties as to the need to improve the legislation, why would the government move so quickly to shut down and limit the debate?

I am sure that tonight amendment after amendment will be voted down by the Liberal government majority. The Liberals will use the weight of their numbers to vote down all the amendments. Once again we will see that democracy does not exist in Canada and that the work of the House does not really take place.

In other words, the work that should be taking place in this Chamber does not take place here. Quite the contrary, for purely partisan political reasons good, worthwhile, well thought out amendments to this legislation will not receive the time they deserve for debate in the House. They will not receive a proper hearing before they are voted on by all members of parliament.

That brings me to the main thrust of my remarks. I want to talk about the golden opportunity that was presented to the government, to the Liberal Party of Canada, to dramatically improve the system with legislation such as the elections act. The Liberals were granted this opportunity when the citizens of this country elected them to govern the country. What we see is a dismal failure on the part of the government with Bill C-2.

I want to digress a bit and talk about my personal history. About 14 years ago I was a farmer in the Peace River country of northern British Columbia. I had farmed for quite a number of years on our family farm. Gradually over a period of time my one brother and I purchased the farm from my parents and we continued to expand it. We were farming about 3,000 acres. It was a fair size grain farm. We grew wheat, barley, canola, oats, all the grains. The Peace River country in both Alberta and British Columbia is noted for being the second largest region in North America for producing grass seed. We grew a lot of grass seed as well.

At that time I though that quite likely I would continue to farm for the remainder of my working life. I certainly had no real interest in politics other than to see good government in Canada. Yet 1986 was a watershed year for me. It was the second year of the first mandate of Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservative government. In 1984 the Tories were handed the most massive mandate up until that time in Canadian history. They came to power in Canada with the promise of cleaning up and changing the direction the Trudeau Liberals had charted for Canada.

There was actually widespread support across the nation but in particular in western Canada for the Progressive Conservatives. I was one of those who grew up supporting the Tories at the ballot box. I had hoped that we would see a major shift in the way that government was done. I was bitterly disappointed.

By 1986 the country was rocked by scandal after scandal. I can run down the list. I do not have enough time in a short 10 minute speech to explain them all but I am sure some of the viewing public will remember them. There was the Oerlikon land flip; there was what became known as tunagate; the Sinclair Stevens affair; a prison that was put into Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's riding that should have gone elsewhere. These things sound familiar. Scandal after scandal rocked the government at the time. It clearly showed to me, a farmer in northern British Columbia, that it was business as usual and that the government under the Conservatives was carrying right along with what the Liberals had done before.

I got angry, I got damn mad. I got involved in a fledgling political movement called the Reform association which in the fall of 1987 became the Reform Party of Canada. This brings me back full circle to the issue at hand today, Bill C-2, reform of the elections act. One of the main issues that prompted me to join the Reform Party was I saw that members of parliament did not adequately represent their constituents. That is what I saw with that massive majority and that is what I see with the government today.

Liberal members sitting across from us today are disciplined to the extent that they will stand up tonight, and it will just be the latest example of this, and they will vote down amendment after amendment purely because their party and their leader tell them that is what they should do. It is not because it is the best thing for their constituents or because it is the best thing for Canada. It is strictly because of partisan politics in Canada that this is what will happen. That is exactly what has been happening for years and years and years regardless of whether it is a Conservative government or a Liberal government.

One of the things I wanted to see changed was to have MPs truly represent the interests of their constituents. One of the ways that can happen is if a government institutes a system of real free votes in this place, where MPs actually have the freedom to vote in the best interests of their constituents. The reality is that it just does not happen under the old party system. The problem is that the old parties like the system just the way it is and they are not about to change it.

Canadians ask me, and I am sure they ask MPs from all the parties, “What would you do differently? If we elect you, how can we trust you? What will you do differently?”

One of the things that is different and refreshing about the Reform Party of Canada is that in our policies and principles we state how we would change the way that elections are conducted. There would be fixed election dates, the use of referenda, the use of recall, the use of citizens initiatives, giving the power back to the people.

The government had the opportunity to do that, to bring about changes like that with Bill C-2, and it chose not to. Shame on it.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. Could you repeat, please? I did not hear the simultaneous translation of what you were saying, even though I was listening.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry you did not hear the simultaneous translation. I am sure it will be available momentarily. In any case, you will have access to a French copy as soon as possible.

Earlier today the Chair was proposing the motions in Group No. 2, and the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre proposed to move three motions to amend clause 359 of Bill C-2. The Chair took these motions under advisement. The Chair has had an opportunity to review these motions and finds that they are in order.

Accordingly, these motions will be numbered 143, 144 and 145, and will be included in Group No. 2. A vote on Motion No. 113 will apply to Motions Nos. 143, 144 and 145. Copies of these motions and of the report stage chart which groups these motions will be available at the table and will be distributed to the parties for their information.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. The Canada Elections Act is perhaps the most important piece of legislation upon which our democracy is built in Canada.

It is based on three principles: equity, transparency and accessibility.

Above all this act is about the participation of Canadians in the most fundamental democratic right, that is the right to choose their government and the right to replace their government.

One of the fundamental principles of the existing act, and one which the amendments to the act we are bringing forward propose to continue and enhance is the right of Canadians to have a broad selection of candidates from which to choose; candidates that do not present themselves only on the basis of having adequate financial resources, but candidates who can present themselves on the basis of a broad range of experiences comparable to those of their fellow Canadians.

One of the fundamental principles of this act is and has been for 30 years that money should not determine who is able to run for election or who is able to influence voters sufficiently to get themselves elected. This law continues the principle of limits on expenses for election purposes. It continues the principle of the right of every Canadian to consider becoming a candidate.

Members of the Reform Party have spoken at great length about how unfair it is to limit third party advertising during election campaigns. We have made sure that candidates are able to put their views before Canadians on a fair and equal basis. In other words, they have a limit on how much they can spend to promote their views to their voters.

The government believes it is only fair that others who participate in the electoral process by putting forward political views about a party or a candidate should be similarly limited and should not be able to spend in an unlimited way and therefore have an undue influence on the formation of public opinion and on the outcome of an election.

We are doing other things in this act to enlarge the capacity of Canadians to participate in the voting process like extending voting hours and allowing people out of the country to vote more easily and more freely at embassies anywhere in the world. We are making sure that Canadians who want to participate in a campaign by showing their support for one or another candidate through signs or volunteer participation are able to do so whether they live in their own private home or they live in a multiple residential dwelling unit.

I would also like to say a few words about certain amendments that were brought forward with regard to financial contributions to candidates during an election campaign.

Some have proposed that the right to make a contribution during a campaign be restricted to voters, which means to Canadian citizens. I have very strong feelings about the right of new Canadians to participate in every aspect of Canadian life from the moment they arrive in our country. I am particularly in favour of their participation in the electoral process.

A large number of new Canadians came here because they were born in a country where democracy did not exist. We have heard the views of a number of separatists on the right of new Canadians to take part in an election. On this side of the House, we encourage them and are not at all in favour of limiting their participation, whether it be as volunteers or as financial contributors.

I will speak about some of the particular provisions in this group of motions. The member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes has made a great point about it not being a very democratic process. He and I sit on the same committee. He knows as well as I do just how long the committee has worked on this matter and of the hearings we held with the media, interested Canadians and all political parties, no matter how small or how large or whether they do or do not have elected members in the House of Commons.

He also knows that a number of the amendments the government has put forward today are in response to suggestions from his party or from other opposition parties. To suggest that there has not been any opportunity for the opposition to influence the outcome of this act is simply not fair.

I point out, for instance in this group, the amendment of the government that gives the Chief Electoral Officer the power to extend voting hours where an emergency has closed the polls for a certain period of time during the day. We have responded to the opposition by making sure that the Chief Electoral Officer extends the hours where there has been an interruption in voting.

We have not agreed with the opposition on the appointment of returning officers. I go back to the Lortie commission. established earlier on in this decade, that consulted broadly with Canadians. It recommended that we not change that aspect of the election process and that it was a far more efficient and cost effective way of running elections in 300 constituencies across the country to have people involved who have experience at the constituency level of the electoral process.

There is not a great deal more to say on this matter, but I ask Canadians to remember that the bill is not about parliamentarians, not about government, but about their right to choose and their right to know that the candidates presenting themselves to them are not advantaged by being privileged, by having a lot of money, by having powerful and rich friends. We all campaign, every party, every member of the House and every candidate who was not elected, on the same financial basis, on a fair and equal footing and on a level playing field. That is exactly what we are trying to do, to ensure that continues under the new act.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-2.

Right at the start, I would like to point out that we Progressive Conservatives are constantly being forced to defend our track record. According to the government and the official opposition, we are responsible for all the ills of this country. According to what my Reform Party colleague said earlier, one would conclude that the Progressive Conservatives have not done one positive thing.

I would like people to judge our reputation, not on what one politician says in a speech, but on what our government accomplished in the nine years it was in power. There is no shame in rising in this House as a Progressive Conservative. In the last century we were in power for only very short periods, but these were always productive periods that made a contribution to restructuring the country as a whole.

I will read the following excerpt. I know that my Reform colleagues are not interested, but hon. members ought to listen carefully to what one of the best editorial writers in the country has to say about the record of the Progressive Conservative government and of Mr. Mulroney. Hon. members will see that this rises above prejudices and purely partisan declarations.

I am doing this strictly in order to illustrate that what was accomplished during those two mandates bore fruit, and will continue to, in a progression that is more than merely geometric. I am sure that my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic has caught my drift, being a mathematician par excellence.

To quote the editorial “When the Chrétien government boasts of the economic results, which are starting to look good, it does so—”

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Order, please. The hon. member knows very well that, in the House, members and ministers are not to be referred to by their names, but by their constituency and title.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, when one is quoting, it sometimes—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I do not agree with the hon. member at all. Using a quote is no excuse to mention a member's surname.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will continue with the quotation. “When the current government boasts about the economic results, which are starting to look good, it does so as the heir to the Conservatives, as the manager of strategic decisions that were made by its predecessor”. This is what Alain Dubuc, a very well known editorial writer in Canada, wrote in La Presse .

Whenever one of my colleagues rises, whether they are members of the official opposition or of the government—they agree on that—they start talking about the results of the Progressive Conservative Party. After dozens of motions for closure on the part of this government, I am not afraid to say that, at the time, we were not afraid of what this government is now afraid of doing concerning the Canada Elections Act, concerning Bill C-20, which seeks to provide a framework for future referendums in the country.

The Liberals absolutely do not want to consult the public to find out what it thinks of this measure. After decades of Liberal governments, I think, and I do not want to engage in rhetoric—I am well aware of the best way to emphasize a reality—that arrogance, contempt and indifference toward the House of Commons and toward all Canadians are now part of a behaviour that is beginning to spread throughout this government.

The government is ramming Bill C-2 through with mere technical amendments and without an in depth review. It is not true that Canadians, including people in Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario, have nothing to say on the reform of the Canada Elections Act. It is not true that Canadians do not know what is going on in this country. It is not true that this exercise was useless.

At the time, I was sitting on the committee considering free trade, which held hearings across the country, with the current Prime Minister. It is not true that we learned nothing from listening to Canadians on this issue, which was just as vital.

Fortunately, because the government respected Canadians, it consulted them. They made us aware of the importance of better structuring marketing, coming up with a free trade agreement that would enable the country to increase its exports to the U.S. market by 150%. The government felt it important to do that.

This was also the case for the tax reform that led to the GST. This tax is bringing in $24 billion this year. The purpose at the time of creating it was not to scrap it eventually, but to scrap taxes. That did not happen.

It is not true that consulting the public and, for a committee, going to hear what people have to say, is time wasted. I am convinced that, be it Bill C-2 or Bill C-20, which concerns a constitutional matter, it is not a waste of time.

I will mention, as an example, the 1995 referendum? What did the present government say to Canadians? It said “Do not get upset, we will assume leadership, we will take it in hand, you may rest in peace”. Things rested in peace until the great rally in Montreal. They rested so peacefully with the opium of the present government that the yes side ended up with 49.4% of the vote.

I say to my anglophone colleagues “Do not sleep too heavily with a government that is afraid to consult the people”.

This bill is extremely important. It will result in some purely technical considerations. Why not have agreed to examine this issue in greater depth?

With respect to appointments, I put a question to the chief electoral officer. Some of my colleagues were in committee at the time. I asked him whether he felt that his recommendation that there be an objective process for appointing returning officers was essential.

I can tell the House what he said. I cannot say that he is a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. He is one of the most respected public servants in the country. He replied “Yes, it is essential for all sorts of reasons. Political appointments as returning officers have incredible repercussions on the daily management of election campaigns. If politically you appoint people without the qualifications, without the necessary potential to do a good job, the result is problems with day-to-day management”. This is what the chief electoral officer told the committee.

Unfortunately, we are headed nowhere with this. I managed to get a few technical amendments approved, but the rest amounts to nothing.

On the issue of funding, members of other parties were open to a study that might one day lead to increased funding from the government so that elections could be conducted in full objectivity.

The Bloc Quebecois has its own view on this issue, which was very well explained by its whip. The same is true for the other political parties. Unfortunately, on the issue of funding, we are no further ahead.

I hope that one day the committee will be able to examine the issue of the funding of the country's national political parties. I think that this puts democracy in this country in serious jeopardy.

There are numerous other aspects. One of the most detrimental aspects of this bill is the control of the activities of third parties during election campaigns. The people who promote political involvement, third parties, are not millionaires. These people will be so mired in administrative procedures that are difficult to understand and impossible to manage without professional resources that the government will be better able to control the next election campaign.

I would have said much more, but I see that my allotted time is up.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I and standing to speak on the Group No. 3 motions to Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act.

Members will remember that the bill was originally sent to committee prior to second reading on the pretence of making meaningful amendments. The minister said that because the bill was important he was putting it into committee so that we could make meaningful amendments.

We deliberated on the bill for several weeks in committee for long hours; from nine in the morning until ten or eleven at night. We discussed many of the amendments or similar amendments to what we are discussing here. However, the government never took it seriously. The reason it sent the bill to committee before second reading was to make a few technical amendments of its own. It pretty much ignored, as the speaker before me said, any reasonable amendments submitted by the opposition.

The Group No. 3 motions are mainly concerned with the area of appointments to staff positions within Elections Canada. As speakers before me have mentioned, the returning officers throughout Elections Canada are appointed by the Prime Minister.

Why would Canadians be happy to have in their electoral system, which is supposed to be totally non-partisan, the Prime Minister appointing all of the 301 returning officers across the country? The answer is that they are not happy. It is outrageous that the government can use this bill to appoint Liberal Party hacks to positions within Elections Canada all the way down to returning officers and deputy returning officers. Out in the field positions of Elections Canada, all the parties get to appoint people.

During the last election many of my colleagues, myself included, told the returning officers that we would not participate in this patronage exercise. We told them that they should advertise the positions and get the best people for the job. That is the way it should be done, from top to bottom in Elections Canada.

The member who spoke before me mentioned the questions we asked the Chief Electoral Officer in committee. I asked the Chief Electoral Officer if, when Elections Canada was helping third world countries and emerging democracies to set up their elections legislation, he ever recommended the system of patronage that we have here in Canada.

Jean Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, said:

—obviously 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 appointment of returning officers under the present system is an anachronism.

It is plain wrong and improper, in an elections act that is supposed to be non-partisan, for this political patronage to go on.

I would like to speak at length about the patronage aspect of the bill but, in many ways, it is actually other areas of the bill that have come to overshadow this section. For example, there are a series of legal challenges that are certain to be launched against the bill based on previous legal activity both at the provincial and federal levels.

A series of legal challenges are certain on a thing called the 50 candidate rule, which requires a party to have 50 candidates before it can put a party name on ballot. The Communist Party of Canada took the federal government to court on that issue. It won its case in Ontario. I cannot understand why the minister is persisting with a ridiculous and stupid provision in the bill that has already been struck down by the courts. Why would he not just reach a consensus with the small parties that came to committee and said that they would be satisfied with 12 members? They did not have to have the two that the courts had said. They would agree to 12 because that was sensible and it related to the rules of the House. The minister would not agree.

Then we have the third party spending, which has just been struck down again in the courts of B.C. In the court in British Columbia, the judge specifically mentioned that the evidence used in the Libman case by this minister to justify a gag law in his elections act is invalid because the evidence used was based on a preliminary report by a UBC political science professor, Richard Johnston, which indicated that third party spending might influence election outcomes.

Although that finding went into the Lortie commission report, which was subsequently used in the Libman case, Professor Johnston later concluded that third party endorsements had no discernible effect on election outcomes.

There have been three studies done in Canada, as well as studies done in other countries, on the effects or non-effects of third party spending in elections. After studying that evidence, Justice Brenner, in the B.C. case, stated:

—there is no evidence which would allow me to conclude that third party advertising or spending has an impact on voter intentions.

To override Charter rights it is necessary that there be more than a general hypothetical concern about a problem when there is no evidence to demonstrate that it has existed in the past or that it is likely to exist in the future.

Professor Johnston's report, which was used in the Libman case, actually concluded, by studying the different impacts, that sometimes third party spending had the apparent effect of working against a candidate in one riding but, on exactly the same issue, had the apparent effect of helping a candidate in another riding.

For example, on the National Citizens' Coalition issues, that are often a part of the third party spending activity, there was no evidence in Professor Johnston's studies that could conclude that the spending had any particular effect in a riding. So that part of the bill is definitely flawed and will be subject to a court challenge.

Judge Brenner, in a February 9 ruling of the B.C. Supreme Court, stated 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, for example, all of the political parties were to agree on a significant policy, then the lack of third party advertising would deprive the voters of a alternative view of that policy. That is a very strong argument in favour of third party spending limits.

Although the main thrust of the motions that we are discussing right now deal with patronage appointments to Elections Canada, I know that the minister is completely unresponsive to any of the amendments that were proposed to fix the problem, just as he is completely unresponsive to any of the court rulings which have shown him he is misguided in other areas of the bill. He is misguided with the 50 candidate rule. He is misguided with third party spending. He is also misguided as far as the publication of poll results goes.

I do not know why he persists in trying to reinstate parts of the bill that are continually being struck down by the courts. Is it a game for him? Is he trying to make the National Citizens' Coalition and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation spend their money in court challenges knowing that the minister does not have to pay out of his own pocket for his side of the thing? It is the taxpayers of Canada who end up paying. I wish he would not treat it like a game. I wish he would treat it with seriousness. I wish he would sit down and actually negotiate amendments to the bill that would make it more meaningful.

When members on the other side say that we do not free vote, that is simply not true. We often support their amendments. On this very bill we have supported at least 20 of their amendments. We have analyzed them, taken a look at them and have said that they are sensible amendments. We are supporting some of the Bloc amendments and even some of the NDP amendments because we have looked at them sensibly and logically. They make sense and they should be supported.

Look at the government side. Every single amendment that has been proposed will be opposed by government members. It is not because the amendments make no sense. They are all good and sensible amendments that should be discussed. They will opposed because government members are afraid their nomination papers will not be signed when it comes to the next election. I wish they would reconsider and start thinking about what is good for the people of Canada instead of their pocketbooks at the next election.

In the last parliament we told the government that bills like the Employment Equity Act, conditional sentencing and bills that had flaws in them would be challenged by the courts, just like the one before us today. We predicted that but they never listened. I wish they would listen on the Canada Elections Act because that minister over there will be responsible for the waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars on meaningless court cases which he could be avoided. I wish he would listen.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that Thursday, February 24, 2000 shall not be an allotted day.

The House resumed 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. 3.

Canada Elections Act

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, would you not just love to have that kind of power that you could just wipe a day out? It is amazing.

While listening to the previous speaker and the ones before, I was trying to understand the point of view of the opposition. I found that there was some reasoned debate by the speaker who just finished, until the end.

Frankly, I also play at the game a little bit from time to time, but one of the reasons that we have such difficulty in this place is because of things like the accusation by an hon. member opposite. He tried to suggest that all the Liberals in this place are only concerned, as he put it, about their pocketbooks, that somehow there are no hon. members on this side of the House only on that side. He said that we only cared about ourselves not about our constituents or the country. It is that kind of rhetoric that makes the hair on the back of our necks stand up and takes the temperature in this place to new levels.

I find it incredible. There is no doubt we are rushing the bill. Let us take a look at the history. In 1991 there was the Lortie commission on electoral reform. This is a slam dunk. We are hammering it home. In 1993 there was the special committee of the House of Commons. Then in 1998 this draconian hard headed government, which does not care about public opinion according to the bright lights opposite, brought in a bill.

That bill was debated in the House and sent to committee. The member opposite remembers serving on the committee late into the evening. Why? It was because they wanted to hear opinions. I have news for members opposite. They are not the government. We on this side are and we have a responsibility as the duly elected government to put forward an agenda.

Members opposite form the opposition. I understand that. I served five years in opposition in the province of Ontario. I respect the fact that they have a job to do, but each party, particularly my dear friends in the Reform Party, continually mislead and misrepresent the issues. This is part of the reason that we wind up—

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would agree it is improper for the member opposite to say that we are misleading or misrepresenting any of the issues, or that we are misleading our constituents.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member has a point. I am sure the hon. member for Mississauga West will choose his words more judiciously.