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—