Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2000

Taxation

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by refusing to index the tax tables, the government pockets annually some $3 billion to $5 billion unbeknownst to its taxpayers.

Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that, without full indexation of tax measures, the upcoming tax cuts he will be announcing will be artificial and will in fact be net tax increases instead?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member need only wait. A budget will be brought down in this House on Monday.

I can see that the opposition is a little nervous because it knows we are in a very good position. We have eliminated the deficit, and many Canadians, myself included, hope that the Minister of Finance will be able to reduce taxes.

Human Resources Development

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for close to three weeks now in the House we have asked the government for two simple things on HRDC: a full accounting of the funds spent and full and clear disclosure on what are the rules for disbursements.

So far we have neither, only the revelation that the rules are so vague and open to political Liberal manoeuvring that the government has to rely on a pocket defence. Will the minister now admit that the transitional jobs fund and other programs are based on political consideration and not on the need for and value of jobs?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, let me again repeat that there was flexibility built into the transitional jobs fund. As a result of that flexibility we see that well over 300 projects were approved in areas of less than 12% unemployment. Over half of those were in opposition ridings.

Gasoline Pricing

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the junior finance minister is not fuelling Canadians with his explanations. There is a lot of exhaust coming from that side of the House about gas prices.

The fact is that the Liberal government increased gas taxes by 1.5 cents per litre, saying it was a deficit reduction measure back in 1995. The deficit is gone. Why is the deficit reduction tax not gone?

[The Speaker]

The hon. Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, this is coming from the party that increased the excise tax on gasoline from 1.5 cents to 8.5 cents. They are the ones who increased it on diesel fuel from zero cents to 4 cents.

They left us in such a mess that we have been faced with very high taxes across the board. This is why the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have committed that we will reduce taxes. We will reduce them in a way that will increase Canada's competitive position on a global basis.

[The Speaker]

It seems to me normal that when we ask a question we cannot start heckling right away until we at least hear what is being said.

Justice

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The minister should know what court orders are being made requiring non-custodial parents to support their adult children as they study for a masters, bachelors or even a Ph.D degree.

I would like the minister to tell the House whether the 1996 child support guidelines were intended to create a class of adult graduate students who are still supported by court order as children of a marriage.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, we introduced new child support guidelines in 1997 to make child support calculations fairer and more consistent in the best interest of the child.

The hon. member should also be aware that in the Divorce Act there is provision for a court to award support for a child over the age of majority, but it is not automatic. A court only makes that determination on the basis of what is reasonable in the circumstances of the family. Provinces and territories have similar legislation. The hon. member should also be aware that the House—

[The Speaker]

That will bring to a close our question period for today.

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 amendments) from the committee.

Canada Elections Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I will put the motions in Group No. 3 to the House.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-2, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 16 on page 10 with the following:

“of the House of Commons approved by a majority of the members of all opposition parties. He or she may be removed for cause by resolution of the House of Commons approved by a majority of the members of all opposition parties.”

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-2, in Clause 13, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 10 the following:

“(1.1) In subsection (1), “resolution of the House of Commons” means a motion of the House of Commons that has been adopted by at least three quarters of the members of that House.”

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-2, in Clause 14, be amended

(a) by replacing line 21 on page 10 with the following:

“while Parliament is dissolved, a substitute”

(b) by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 10 with the following:

“shall act as Chief Electoral Officer until 15 days after the beginning of the first session of the next”

(c) by adding after line 3 on page 11 the following:

“(5) If the Chief Electoral Officer dies while the House of Commons is adjourned or prorogued or, if the Chief Electoral Officer is unable or neglects to carry out the duties of the position for more than five days when the House of Commons is adjourned or prorogued, the House shall meet within five days following the end of that period to appoint a new Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with subsection 13(1).”

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-2, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 11 the following:

“(b.1) exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions set out in sections 24, 24.1 and 24.2;”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-2, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 11 the following:

“(b.1) exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions set out in sections 35.1 and 35.2;”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-2, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 11 the following:

“(b.1) exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions set out in sections 34.1 and 34.2;”

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-2, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 11 the following:

“(b.1) exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions set out in sections 26.1 and 26.2;”

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-2, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 22 on page 12 with the following:

“rupted on polling day by an emergency and the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that, if the voting hours are not extended, a substantial number of electors will not be able to vote, the Chief Electoral Officer shall extend the voting hours at the polling station for a period of time equivalent to the period during which the polling station had to be closed because of the emergency, as long as it does not in any case”

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

moved:

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-2, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 12 with the following:

“shall extend the voting hours at the polling station for the period the Chief Electoral Officer considers necessary to give those electors a reasonable opportunity to vote, as long as the polling station does not in any case”

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-2, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 16 with the following:

“24. (1) Subject to section 24.1, the Chief Electoral Officer shall”

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-2, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 16 with the following:

“district to hold office for a term of ten years and may only remove him or her for”

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-2, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 17 with the following:

“(7) The Chief Electoral Officer may remove”

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 31 on page 17 the following new clause:

“24.1 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall hold a competition for the selection of qualified candidates for the purposes of the appointment of returning officers under subsection 24(1).

(2) A competition held under subsection (1) shall be open to all qualified electors, other than persons referred to in subsection 22(3).

(3) The Chief Electoral Officer shall give such notice of a proposed competition as in his or her opinion will give qualified electors a reasonable opportunity of making an application for the position of returning officer.

(4) Applications for the position of returning officer shall be in the prescribed form and shall be made at the prescribed time and verified in the prescribed manner.

(5) The Chief Electoral Officer shall examine and consider all applications for the position of returning officer received within the time prescribed for the receipt of applications and shall select the highest ranking candidates in the competition from among the qualified applicants.

24.1.2 The Chief Electoral Officer may make regulations

(a) prescribing anything that may be prescribed by section 24.1;

(b) defining the expression “qualified” for the purposes of section 24.1; and

(c) the Chief Electoral Officer considers necessary to carry out and give effect to section 24.1.”

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-2, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 37 on page 17 with the following:

“25. Between the 1st and 20th days of”

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-2, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing line 43 on page 17 with the following:

“26. (1) Subject to subsection (1.2), a returning officer shall, without”

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-2, in Clause 26, be amended

(a) by replacing line 45 on page 17 with the following:

“an assistant returning officer from the list most recently sent to the returning officer under subsection 26.1(6), who shall hold”

(b) by adding after line 47 on page 17 the following:

“(1.1) Every appointment made under subsection (1) shall be made impartially.”

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-2, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 5 on page 18 with the following:

“(2) A returning officer shall not appoint his or her mother, father, child, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, employee, a person who lives with him or her or a child of a person who lives with him or her, as an assistant returning officer.”

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 18 the following new clause:

“26.1 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall, before each general election, hold a competition for the selection of qualified candidates to be placed on a list referred to in subsection (6) for the purposes of the appointment of assistant returning officers under section 26, 28, 29 or 30. The selection shall be based on a candidate's merit and experience and shall be made impartially.

(2) A competition held under subsection (1) shall be open to all qualified electors, other than persons referred to in subsection 22(3).

(3) The Chief Electoral Officer shall give such notice of a proposed competition as, in his or her opinion, will give qualified electors a reasonable opportunity of making an application for the position of assistant returning officer.

(4) Applications for the position of assistant returning officer shall be in the prescribed form and shall be made at the prescribed time and verified in the prescribed manner.

(5) The Chief Electoral Officer shall examine and consider all applications for the position of assistant returning officer received within the time prescribed for the receipt of applications and shall select the highest ranking candidates in the competition from among the qualified applicants for the purposes of subsection (6).

(6) The Chief Electoral Officer shall prepare a list of the highest ranking candidates in the competition for each electoral district and shall send it to the returning officer for the electoral district.

26.1.2 The Chief Electoral Officer may make regulations

(a) prescribing anything that may be prescribed in section 26.1;

(b) defining the expression “qualified” for the purposes of section 26.1; and

(c) the Chief Electoral Officer considers necessary to carry out and give effect to section 26.1.”

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-2, in Clause 28, be amended by deleting lines 24 to 26 on page 18.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-2, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 18 with the following:

“officer, the Chief Electoral Officer shall appoint”

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-2, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 18 with the following:

“returning officer without delay from the list most recently sent under subsection 26.1(6) to the returning officer who is unable to act.

(6) Every appointment made under this section shall be made impartially.”

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-2, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 19 with the following:

“delay appoint a substitute from the list most recently sent to the returning officer under subsection 26.1(6).

(2.1) Every appointment made under subsection (2) shall be made impartially.”

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-2, in Clause 30, be amended

(a) by replacing line 31 on page 19 with the following:

“additional assistant returning officer from the list most recently sent to the returning officer under subsection 26.1(6) and es-”

(b) by adding after line 33 on page 19 the following:

“(2.1) Every appointment made under subsection (2) shall be made impartially.”

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-2, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 19 on page 21 with the following:

“appointed impartially from the list mostly recently sent under subsection 34.1(6) to the returning officer making the appointment.”

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 21 on page 21 the following new clause:

“34.1 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall, before each general election, hold a competition for the selection of qualified candidates to be placed on a list referred to in subsection (6) for the purposes of the appointment of deputy returning officers under section 32 or subsection 253(1) or 273(1). The selection shall be based on a candidate's merit and experience and shall be made impartially.

(2) A competition held under subsection (1) shall be open to all qualified electors other than persons referred to in subsection 22(3).

(3) The Chief Electoral Officer shall give such notice of a proposed competition as, in his or her opinion, will give qualified electors, a reasonable opportunity of making an application for that position.

(4) Applications for the position of deputy returning officer shall be in the prescribed form and shall be made at the prescribed time and verified in the prescribed manner.

(5) The Chief Electoral Officer shall examine and consider all applications for the position of deputy returning officer received within the time prescribed for the receipt of applications and shall select the highest ranking candidates in the competition from among the qualified applicants for the purposes of subsection (6).

(6) The Chief Electoral Officer shall prepare a list of the highest ranking candidates in the competition for each electoral district and shall send it to the returning officer for the electoral district.

34.1.2 The Chief Electoral Officer may make regulations

(a) prescribing anything that may be prescribed by section 34.1;

(b) defining the expression “qualified” for the purposes of section 34.1; and

(c) the Chief Electoral Officer considers necessary to carry out and give effect to section 34.1.”

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-2, in Clause 35, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 27 on page 21 with the following:

“paragraph 32(b) or (c) shall be appointed impartially from the list most recently sent under subsection 35.1(6) to the returning officer making the appointment.”

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 21 the following new clause:

“35.1 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall, before each general election, hold a competition for the selection of qualified candidates to be placed on a list referred to in subsection (6) for the purposes of the appointment of poll clerks under section 32 or subsection 253(1) or 273(1). The selection shall be based on a candidate's merit and experience and shall be made impartially.

(2) A competition held under subsection (1) shall be open to all qualified electors, other than persons referred to in subsection 22(3).

(3) The Chief Electoral Officer shall give such notice of a proposed competition as in his or her opinion will give qualified electors a reasonable opportunity of making an application for the position of poll clerk.

(4) Applications for the position of poll clerk shall be in the prescribed form and shall be made at the prescribed time and verified in the prescribed manner.

(5) The Chief Electoral Officer shall examine and consider all applications for the position of poll clerk received within the time prescribed for the receipt of applications and shall select the highest ranking candidates in the competition from among the qualified applicants for the purposes of subsection (6).

(6) The Chief Electoral Officer shall prepare a list of the highest ranking candidates in the competition for each electoral district and shall send it to the returning officer for the electoral district.

35.1.2 The Chief Electoral Officer may make regulations

(a) prescribing anything that may be prescribed by section 35.1;

(b) defining the expression “qualified” for the purposes of section 35.1; and

(c) the Chief Electoral Officer considers necessary to carry out and give effect to section 35.1.”

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-2, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 21 with the following:

“appoint deputy returning officers from other sources if the candidates”

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-2, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 21 with the following:

“appoint poll clerks from other sources if the candidates”

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-2, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 38 and 39 on page 21 with the following:

“able grounds, refuse to appoint a poll clerk recommended”

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-2, in Clause 37, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 21 with the following:

“returning officer recommended”

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-2, in Clause 273, be amended

(a) by replacing line 8 on page 108 with the following:

“273. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the returning officer shall appoint”

(b) by adding after line 15 on page 108 the following:

“(1.1) Every appointment of a poll clerk made under subsection (1) shall be made from the list most recently sent under subsection 35.1(6) to the returning officer making the appointment and shall be made impartially.”

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-2, in Clause 273, be amended

(a) by replacing line 8 on page 108 with the following:

“273. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the returning officer shall appoint”

(b) by adding after line 15 on page 108 the following:

“(1.1) Every appointment of a deputy returning officer made under subsection (1) shall be made from the list most recently sent under subsection 34.1(6) to the returning officer making the appointment and shall be made impartially.”

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-2, in Clause 273, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 34 on page 108.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the third group of amendments on Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act.

We had very interesting debates through the first group of amendments. As members know, that first group dealt with self-employed workers. We were able to see, during the debate on that group, that the government is not very open to this category of workers.

The second group of amendments deals essentially with financial issues, including all the issues relating to the financing of political parties. Once again, it seems that the government has been very unreceptive to the various proposals put forward by opposition members.

In this third group of amendments, we address the partisan appointment of election officials, in particular the chief electoral officer himself, returning officers and assistant returning officers, in other words everyone responsible for the proper conduct of elections, across Canada of course, but also in each of the 301 ridings throughout Canada and Quebec.

But before saying anything more about the amendments in Group No. 3, I would simply like to make a general comment about the manner in which the government has conducted the debate so far and to make an even more general comment about how the government has operated for a number of months now.

I think we could say, without the shadow of a doubt, that this government, whose parliamentary majority is fairly slim, to say the least, does not shy away from an almost autocratic style of operating, imposing one gag after another. Indeed, this is a government to whom bringing in closure has become second nature.

Parliamentary procedure, as we know, is part of the rich and time-honoured parliamentary tradition, which makes available a certain number of provisions for ensuring the right to speak of the opposition and of various members of the House, but more particularly of members of the opposition parties.

The opposition quite rightly relies on these various provisions to put forward its arguments and points of view, as well as the points of view expressed by the people of Canada and of Quebec through the opposition parties.

But the government, convinced that it is right, that it knows everything, does not wish to hear points of view that differ from its own, and imposes closure. We saw this with Bill C-20, when the government brought in closure at second reading in order to speed up committee stage. At the moment, on the committee, the government is preparing to gag deliberations; it told us right off that it would probably proceed in the same manner with subsequent study in the House, that is, at report stage and at third reading.

I would add as a small aside that Bill C-20 is probably one of the most important bills ever given us to study since our election in 1997 and, certainly in my case, since the 1993 election. There have been a lot of other very important bills, but none intended to question the very bases of this country, the very bases of Canadian federalism, the very process the provinces that chose to join together to form this country used at the time.

Some very upsetting and scandalous things are happening with Bill C-20. The government wants to prevent the people from being heard on a bill that directly affects their future, the future of Quebec in Canada or outside it, the future of any province—although Quebec is clearly the focus—the future of any other province in Canada either inside or outside Canada, and it wants to rush this bill through in secrecy, without anyone expressing an opinion. That is totally unacceptable.

The government is pushing its arrogance, adding insult to injury, bulldozing, if I may put it that way, another basic bill in a democracy and perhaps even the most fundamental bill in a democracy, the Elections Act.

The government claimed to have shown goodwill in introducing Bill C-2, saying “We will take into consideration the various positions in this House; we do not want to impose closure; we do not want to rush parliamentary procedure; we want to hear and, if possible, even integrate the suggestions of the opposition”.

And what happened? First the committee deliberations were hurried up in a rather cavalier fashion, I must say.