Debates of Feb. 20th, 2001

Supply

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is difficult to say. I suppose it would depend on what model we would adopt, but presumably that is exactly why this system is wanted. In other words, a party that would not win the seat in a first past the post system would have a second crack at it to take people from its list and make them responsible or somehow the spokesperson for the particular area of the country.

I do not know if that is bad per se. I do not believe that part is inherently bad. I suppose all political parties where they are not represented in the country have their shadow critics visiting the area or they twin with another riding. They do all these things right now. This is something that is done informally by probably most caucuses in the House, save perhaps for the Bloc Quebecois. Because of its particular orientation that is not something it wants to do. I accept that, but for most others that would probably be the case at the present time.

That in itself is not what is wrong. It is the whole business of having MPs, who are not elected directly by anyone and who do not represent ridings, sitting in the House with us and having the same kind of participation as the rest of us even though no one directly voted for them. To me that is not democratic.

Some perhaps would say, and it is arguable, that a second round is an idea. Of course that has nothing to do with proportional representation. It is actually the reverse of it. It is a debate.

However the issue of proportional representation, particularly when tampered with in the way that it was advocated in some of the speeches, is a form of proportional representation that is not really proportional anyway. We kind of wonder what it is supposed to achieve. If it is moderated by all these factors then it ceases to be proportional. We have all of the negative effects from it and presumably none of the benefits.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to give a speech in the House since the last election, although I did ask a question a week or two ago.

I guess the time is appropriate to thank my constituents for sending the Liberal appointee in my riding packing. My vote percentage went up again for the third time, so that was pretty good. The appointee in my riding, an NDPer who switched horses in the middle of the NDP's mandate in B.C. to join the Liberals, was sent packing with a lower percentage of the vote than the previous Liberal candidate, so that was pretty good too. Actually NDP members provincially are jumping ship at an increasing rate because there is an election any day and the NDP are expected to go down in a massive defeat in B.C.

I will read the motion and the amendment we are debating today:

That this House immediately strike a special all-party committee to examine the merits of various models of proportional representation and other electoral reforms, with a view to recommending reforms that would combat the increasing regionalization of Canadian politics, and the declining turnout of Canadians in federal elections

The motion is really about fairness, despite all the words we heard from the minister just a few minutes ago. Frankly it is hopeless talking to the minister about fairness or about the idea of proportional representation, because after all his party has 100% of the power with considerably less than 50% of the popular vote. Why would he be the slightest bit interested in any fairness? He has well under 50% of the vote and 100% of the power. What could be better for them? It is not surprising.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

That is democracy.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Somebody yelled out “That is democracy”. How in anybody's mind could it be democratic that they have 100% of the power with less than 50% of the votes? It just does not make any sense.

I heard the minister say a few minutes ago that he does not like the idea of any type of proportional representation because there is no consensus on how to go about implementing it. New Zealand, the country that I am originally from, gave us a wonderful example of how to go about doing it. In 1994, I think it was, there was a referendum in New Zealand that asked the people whether they wanted to change the system. That is democracy.

The people of New Zealand decided they did want to change the system. Over the next 12 to 18 months elections New Zealand, or whatever the body responsible for elections in New Zealand is called, set about informing the people of New Zealand of the alternatives.

Every home in New Zealand received a booklet of about 28 to 30 pages describing the various forms of proportional representation and the likely outcome in an election. I have a copy of it in my office. At the end of that period there was a second referendum where the people of New Zealand chose the system they favoured. They chose mixed member proportional, which is similar to the system in Germany.

Within that system there are many variations: how the list is appointed and whether they are elected or appointed.

For the minister to stand there and say that there is no consensus on how to proceed is silly. Frankly, I am surprised the minister would be that silly.

Unfortunately, the motion is non-votable, so we all know that it is pretty much meaningless to have this day of debate. It is sad to say it but that is the reality. I heard the minister himself say that it was like shovelling air. That is true. What a disgrace that we can spend a whole day here debating and giving careful thought to this topic but at the end of the day we cannot even vote.

I realize the NDP members have the opportunity to choose which of their motions will be votable and which will not, but I put the question forward: Why should there even be any non-votable motions? Why should anything in this place where there has been a debate be non-votable? It defies logic to have a whole day of debate in this place at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to run this place every day and not even be allowed to vote on the issue at the end of the day.

The same logic applies to private members' bills. I spoke this morning with a member from the Liberal side of the House who was very disappointed that his private member's bill was made non-votable. He had the feeling that it was because of opposition members on the committee that his bill was not made votable. The fact is we should not be facing this sort of position. All private members' bills should be votable, just like government business is votable in the House.

It is sad that we have a motion that is non-votable, but on top of that we have a motion that the NDP members already raised in this place less than a year ago. It puzzles me why they would be revisiting something that we already debated less than a year ago. Why did they not use their day on a votable motion about parliamentary reform? Goodness knows there is plenty that needs to be done in this place to make it more democratic. Why on earth did they waste a whole day debating something they already thrashed in private member's business a year ago?

Regarding the subject of the motion, I constantly hear the NDP members bleating about the growing gap between the rich and the poor. I hear them talking about child poverty, about NAFTA and about the need for more social programs. Why have they not brought any of those issues forward today instead of bringing forward something they already debated 12 months ago?

The debate illustrates the reason why the NDP is in decline. There is no new thinking there. There is nothing stimulating about what it is doing. No wonder it is in decline. I guess because it never wants to be the government it can pretty well say anything it wants to.

I will give an example. During the election campaign I was at an all candidates debate at Capilano College in my riding, which is a well known hotbed of socialism in my riding. The NDP candidate for North Vancouver was unable to come, so the member for Vancouver East filled in that day. I must say that I do enjoy debating the member for Vancouver East. It is always very entertaining for both of us and for the audience as well.

In this particular case, the audience at Capilano College was entirely on the side of the member for Vancouver East. The member for Vancouver East promised anything. The students could have free tuition as much as they wanted. They could have interest free student loans. They could have their student loans waived. They could have gay marriages. They could have anything they wanted. Everything they asked for she said an NDP government would give them.

Some of the students were in tears. They were so happy at what they were being promised by the NDP they were sobbing in their seats. Of course I got the thumbs down. I probably got a two pointer out of ten.

The fact is that the NDP members are out of touch. They know they can promise anything to any special interest group and never be faced with having to enact those measures in this place.

One NDP member has talked a lot about parliamentary reform. One way those members could have contributed would have been to have proposed a motion today about parliamentary reform and what needs to be done differently in the House. We could have even re-debated the child poverty issue. They even get their own history incorrect.

A motion was introduced and debated in the House on November 24, 1989. Every November we get regurgitated throughout the country about how parliament promised to get rid of child poverty by the year 2000 and the NDP rush around the country saying that it promises to get rid of child poverty by the year 2000.

The fact is that is not what the NDP motion said in 1989. I can read the exact wording. It states:

That this House express its concern for the more than 1 million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.

It was not to get rid of it but to seek to achieve it. The reason it was worded that way is that it was the last day in the House for Mr. Broadbent, the leader of the NDP at the time. It was a votable motion and the whole place wanted to send him off on a high note.

It was of course a motherhood and apple pie motion that would seek to achieve and to try to eliminate something at some time in the future, and everybody voted for it. Since then the NDP has regurgitated the motion every February by promising to get rid of child poverty by the year 2000.

Frankly, if the NDP can point to a country anywhere in the world that has managed to do that—

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt the hon. member but there is such a thing as a rule of relevancy. We have a motion before the House on parliamentary reform for proportional representation. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you would ask the member speaking to be more relevant to the point.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sure at some point in time the hon. member for North Vancouver will tie everything that he has said to date to the motion that is before the House.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I am tying it to the debate. What I am trying to point out is that the members of the NDP had a wealth of subjects that it could have debated today and I am trying to assist them. If they had debated something a bit different, the benches above us would be filled with the media wanting to report it. Instead there is not a single person from the media in this place today. I would be willing to bet that there will be nothing, not a word, of a report in a newspaper anywhere about what has happened in the debate today.

What I trying to do is help members of the NDP to see that perhaps they could have got more bang for their buck if they had discussed one of their critical issues instead of talking about something we already talked about and got nowhere on less than a year ago.

With regard to the parliamentary reform aspects, if we had truly meaningful free votes in this place, the first past the post system would not be as critical. It would not matter so much. If each of us was truly representing our constituency views and voting that way in this place, it would not matter that we were elected by first past the post because representation would be the key issue not how we got here.

On the other hand, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle knows, I and my party are supportive—and the critic will be speaking about this in more detail later—of the general thrust of the motion. We spoke in favour of it in past times when he brought this issue forward. The issue is not whether we are in favour of the motion, it is whether they are getting a good bang for their buck today.

Let us talk a bit more about parliamentary reform that they could have introduced, quite apart from free votes. If the private members' business was all votable then it would be meaningful to bring back this motion in a votable form and during private members' business.

We should have the ability to vote from our ridings when we are there on business, as is done in some other countries. In this day of technology, why do we actually have to be physically here to stand in our places and vote on an issue, which we fully understand and which we have been following? Just because we are in our riding for a day should not exclude us from the ability to vote. That is not democratic.

There are systems available now. We could even have fingerprint recognition where we would put one of our digits into a little machine which would recognize us in our riding. There is no reason that we should not be able to vote remotely. When we are away on parliamentary committees or overseas on some important issue to do with parliamentary business, why should we be deprived of the ability to represent our constituents by voting in this place? It just does not make sense.

The only reason we are not moving toward some of these reforms is the intransigence of the minister opposite. He is not willing to accept anything that represents a greater degree of democracy. He talks the good talk about modernizing the elections act but when push comes to shove he is not interested in doing that. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the bill that he tabled this week to change the Canada Elections Act to allow parties with 12 candidates to have their names on the ballot during elections.

When the new elections act came through this place several months ago and the small parties, including the Communist Party and the Green Party, came to Ottawa to give committee evidence, they all said that the 50 candidate rule was unfair. I agreed with them. We worked out a compromise; 12 candidates, the number that is recognized in this place.

We went to the minister with that compromise and he said no. What happened? He got involved in an expensive court case which was won by the Communist Party of Canada. The court ruled that two members were sufficient to constitute a party and insisted that the minister come back to this place and fix the problem before February 15. The day before the deadline he introduced a bill to change the number to 12.

The minister argued that he was trying to improve democracy by modernizing the bill but he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to that point, only to accept the number that was proposed in a compromise nine or twelve months ago. In the meantime, he spent huge amounts of taxpayer dollars defending that position.

I would predict confidently that he is into the same problem with the Canada Elections Act, with the challenge by the National Citizens' Coalition over third party advertising. He will spend a fortune, probably millions of dollars, challenging it in the courts only to have it struck down as unconstitutional as it has been three times previously.

Those are the sorts of issues, if the NDP really wanted to be forward thinking and creative, that would have moved us forward from where we are. We should be talking about the things that would make this place work better for the people we represent.

Another modernization we could do is, if the government would not accept absolutely total outright free votes, maybe we could agree that if, say, 30% of the total membership of the House, which would be about 60 members at the moment, demanded a secret ballot, that we would do something completely different. Let us get outside the box. If 60 members in this place demanded a secret ballot on a private member's bill or on a government motion or a government bill, then we have a secret ballot. I know the minister would argue immediately that we could not do that because our constituents want to see how we voted. There is some validity to that sort of statement.

However, the fact is that sometimes democracy would be served by having a secret ballot in this place. The example I just gave, of the 12 candidate rule, is a good example of where a secret ballot could have fixed the problem. That side of the House was compelled to vote for something that the courts were saying was wrong. In a couple of weeks time they will vote 180 degrees opposite for something completely different because they are whipped into voting the way they are told, instead of voting with common sense. There are good debates in the House where common sense prevails. Members from the opposite side have told me that they liked the idea I had talked about with a proposed bill but that they could not vote for it.

There is something wrong with our democratic process when we have that state of affairs in the House of Commons, where people on the government side know that they should not be voting against something but they are compelled to vote against it by the whipping on that side of the House.

We could achieve a lot with a decent piece of parliamentary reform.

Apart from parliamentary reform, members of the NDP could have talked about other issues. I mentioned child poverty. They are always on about taxing the rich and that corporations do not pay enough income tax or that 1,000 corporations did not pay any income tax this year. I have been in at least three public debates with the member from Vancouver East where she has spouted the usual rhetoric about corporations that do not pay income tax. I have challenged her on all three occasions to name the companies that did not pay the income tax and to tell me why they did not. She has never come up with a list and has never come up with the reasons. I know why. As soon as she gets the names of the companies and looks at the reasons, she will see there are very good reasons for not paying the income tax.

For example, the Royal Trust, I think, was used as an example one time. It is a subsidiary of another company. It transferred its profits to the parent company which then paid the income tax.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is such a thing as a rule of relevancy. No wonder people do not think much of the institution. We have a debate on a specific topic, PR, and we have a member who is hardly talking about it at all. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to call him to order and get him to address the motion before the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Of course we are all expecting the hon. member for North Vancouver to indeed tie up his remarks to the subject at hand. On the other hand, if the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has questions or comments, he should feel free to stand up and I will recognize him.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I always manage to tie it into the topic in the end and I certainly will in this case.

As I was stating, this day could have been used to debate critical NDP issues, such as corporations that do not pay any taxes. I am sure that at least half of the reason the member wants to keep stopping me is if there are NDP members watching today all manner of myths are being dispelled about the rhetoric that is handed out to them on a daily basis. Whenever I have these people approach me in my office I always ask for examples of the corporations that did not pay taxes and the reasons they did not. When they do the research they find out that it is all nonsense.

The NDP members could have used their day today for these other topics and we could have talked about these critical key issues. Instead of that, we are stuck with an issue that we have debated before.

As other members of my party will say, we do support the thrust of the motion. If it were votable today, we would be voting in favour of it. Unfortunately, it is non-votable. That is just an example of how undemocratic this place really is.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member opposite for his remarks, particularly as they are aimed at the issue at point, proportional representation. I would like to ask the member a somewhat delicate question.

He alluded in his remarks to the possibility of being able, with electronic voting, to vote from one's constituency. I would like to ask him a question. Does he feel that an MP's primary responsibility should be to be at parliament, on this hill at least if not in this Chamber, when parliament is in session? In other words, do his voters not actually expect him to be here in Ottawa, at parliament, when the House is sitting?

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from the member on the Liberal side: Do the constituents expect us to be here in parliament when the House is sitting? That is a wide ranging question.

In my experience, I have found that most people do not even know when parliament is sitting, for a start. In the summertime, they quite often ask when we are going back to parliament. I would expect the hon. member probably gets the same sorts of questions. People do not even know when parliament is sitting. However, they also recognize, certainly in the west, that this place is not terribly relevant to the process of governing.

Unfortunately, because of the lack of democracy in this place, they know that the outcome of every vote is known before the debates begin. They know that today when I stand here and give a 20 minute speech and answer questions it will not make one bit of difference to the outcome of today's business.

In 1993, I made a promise to my constituents, and I repeated it in writing in the North Shore News four days before the vote in the election of 2000. I promised that while parliament was in session that I would be here three days and in my riding two days. The reason for doing that is so that I can meet with my constituents and deal with their concerns, assist those who want to come here to give evidence before parliamentary committees, talk about the bills that are before the House and be available because, frankly, many of us would recognize that a lot more can be achieved dealing with our constituents than can be achieved in this place.

There are many surveys that have been done in Canada by Ipsos-Reid and other polling companies that have discovered that the longer a person is in this place as a member the more emphasis he or she places on helping constituents because it is the one area where there is satisfaction, and virtually nothing in this place gives satisfaction.

In terms of the voting from the constituency, of course at any time while parliament is in session there are always large numbers of people away on committee travel and overseas travel. Those people should be able to vote remotely.

In New Zealand there is a house rule that was adopted in 1996, at first on an experimental basis and made permanent a year later. Up to 20% of the caucus of each party can be absent at any time and the whip votes by proxy for that 20%. That gives flexibility for people to be away on committee travel or overseas travel and yet there is 100% attendance all the time. Some may argue it is cheating the system, but it is really no different from being able to vote from the riding.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke has been fighting the B.C. election that is going to come in a few weeks' time, and I find it very strange that he would also talk about why we are once again putting the motion forward.

The Library of Parliament tells us that the last time there was a vote on PR in this parliament was in 1923. The last time it was debated as a private member's initiative prior to last fall, when I had a motion that was votable before the House, was in 1979 when Jean-Luc Pepin, who was a Liberal member at the time, had a non-votable motion on looking at the wisdom of the PR system being part of our electoral system in Canada.

Last fall my Motion No. 155, which was votable and was similar to the motion today, asked to strike an all party committee to look at the wisdom of looking at elements of PR for our system. This initiative has hardly ever been discussed in the Parliament of Canada, so I am very surprised the member would be criticizing us for putting forth an idea that has hardly ever been talked about before. Just last week the member's own party had a motion in the House dealing with the ethics counsellor. That was a repetitive thing too because that was a promise of the Liberal Party in the 1993 red book. The argument he is making is a rather strange one indeed.

I want to ask the hon. member specifically about proportional representation. He has studied the New Zealand system and I would like to have him tell the House what kind of model of PR he would think is relevant for our country. We are a unique federation. We have the uniqueness and distinctiveness of Quebec. Geographically we are the second largest country in the world outside of Russia. We have very diverse histories and so on. What kind of a model would he suggest we look at if indeed we did have an all-party committee to take a look at this?

I also remind the House that I think the chief electoral officer has a mandate in which he could look at PR. Therefore all we need to do is strike a committee to look at various electoral systems. I wonder what contribution he would make in regard to the kind of model if we indeed had such a committee.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first say that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle should not be complaining that we have not had a vote in this place since 1923 when he has made the NDP's own motion today non-votable. If NDP members wanted a vote, why did they not make it votable today? Why use today for a non-votable motion if they only get one votable motion?

Everyone is laughing. Is that not a sad commentary? This is what I said earlier. Why on earth are these motions non-votable? It is an affront to democracy and everyone in this place should be absolutely ashamed that it even happens.

In terms of our motion last week, which was votable, I think the member would have to agree there was good bang for the buck in that one. The Liberals voted against their own policy. The newspapers and the media were very happy to talk about that one. It is a shame that there will not be any coverage of today's discussions.

In terms of the system I would support myself, as the member knows I have been the critic for direct democracy right up to the last election. I always took the position that I needed to be neutral because people tend to be wedded to one form or another of proportional representation. I always felt it would be difficult for me to continue in my role as critic if people felt that I was predisposed toward one system or another. I would prefer to retain that neutrality at this time just on the off chance that we ever get that all party committee. I would like to be sitting on the committee with people knowing that I am taking a neutral stand.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member refers to the issue of the 1989 resolution of parliament with regard to child poverty. I think his recollection is quite right. In fact, it was a Friday, there were only 25 members in the House and there was no vote.

In any event, the member did make a statement which I think is heard in this place often enough, and maybe it deserves the question. The member said that this place is not relevant because the results of most votes are known even before they are held. The member is probably right. It is reflective of the fact that there are 172 members of the Liberal Party out of 301 members of parliament.

I wonder whether the member would like to tell the House what number of members a government needs to have to be able to win a vote. Does it require 90% of the seats in the House and 90% of the votes? Would that be acceptable to make it relevant? At what level would he deem it to be relevant when there is a vote in the House and there is a majority government? There must be a point somewhere. If 100% of the seats were held by one party and there was a vote, would it be relevant? I would really like to know whether or not the member has a position in regard to at what point the result of a vote of democratically elected members of parliament has relevance.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that we know the outcome of votes in this place before the debates begin is not reflective of the fact that the government has 172 members out of 301. It is reflective of the fact that there are no free votes. The fact is that because there are no free votes in this place we know the outcome of every vote.

The member asks me what numbers the government needs. If this were truly a democratic place, the number the government would need is the number it could convince to vote for its measure, so that we could have meaningful debates here and meaningful input at committees because the government would be challenged with the task of convincing every member in this place that it was a good measure. Each one of us would have a lot more power to influence, to tweak and to make minor adjustments. Earlier today I gave the example of the 12 candidate rule; it never would have wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers' money because it could have been solved right in this place with a free vote.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the core issue being debated today is democracy and how it is exercised in Canada, allow me to first congratulate the Speaker of the House on his election, since I had not yet had the opportunity to do so. Mr. Speaker, I also congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair.

I would also like to thank the people of Verchères—Les-Patriotes who, for the third time, in November 2000, elected me to represent them in the House of Commons.

Let us now turn our attention to the motion before us. The Canadian Alliance member who just spoke seemed surprised that the media will not be reporting on today's proceedings in the House in the news at midday, this evening or tomorrow.

Based on what I have heard so far, I personally am not surprised that the media are not interested in reporting such debates.

First, the New Democratic Party brought forward this motion in favour of a system based on proportional representation. Then, the government House leader rose and, for all sorts of reasons—some legitimate and others totally fallacious—opposed any form of proportional representation. He went so far as to say “We do not even want to debate and discuss this motion”. Finally, the member of the Canadian Alliance member got up and said “This may be an important issue, but you should have discussed this or that other issue instead”.

I respectfully submit to member of the Canadian Alliance that this is none of his business. It is not up to him to decide which issues other political parties may wish to debate.

The New Democratic Party is perfectly entitled to choose whatever issue it may want to submit to the attention of this House, without having to put up with criticism from other political parties.

Furthermore, when the Canadian Alliance member said that the debates in the House were utterly pointless because they were not put to a vote, I think that he is underestimating or trivializing their importance.

Of course, it would be eminently desirable for every debate to be followed by a vote so that parliamentarians' intentions could be put on record. But I think it is pretty insulting to us as parliamentarians to say that the discussions and debates we have in the House are pointless, to say ,if I may take the logic to its ultimate extreme, that freedom of expression is basically a waste of time.

I think that we have this privilege of full free freedom of expression here in the House especially. In no way would I want to see us attempt to trivialize the opportunity we have to express our views on a whole range of public interest issues.

As I said earlier and I repeat, it would be eminently desirable for us to be able to vote on each subject debated, but the fact of the matter is that this is not now the case. While we are on the topic of the whole issue of electoral reform, we should perhaps in fact look at a parliamentary reform that would eventually result in votes on all issues that attract the attention of the House.

I would like to address more specifically the New Democratic Party motion, which reads as follows:

That this House strike a special all-party committee to examine the merits of various models of proportional representation and other electoral reforms, with a view to recommending reforms that would combat the increasing regionalization of Canadian politics, and the declining turnout of Canadians in federal elections.

There are a number of elements of interest in this motion. First, in connection with the statement about the desire to create an all-party committee to examine the merits of various models of proportional representation and other issue of electoral reform, I do not feel it is heretical in any way to state that it would be desirable for all parties to meet together in a committee to debate such issues. The matter of striking a committee is, I believe, an idea that merits looking at, merits examination and analysis.

Now some may claim that there is already a committee in the House mandated to examine all matters relating to the electoral system, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Should the government, for one reason or another, as seems likely to be the case, for there will be no vote on this, decide not to follow up on the wishes expressed by the New Democratic Party for the striking of a special all party committee to examine matters of electoral reform, perhaps the procedure and House affairs committee, which is made up of representatives of all parties in the House, could decide to act on this wish. This could be done as a follow up on the report the Chief Electoral Officer must file on the last federal election and to ensure that we are able to make some amendments to the Elections Act in order to modernize it and bring it more in line with the expectations of Canadians and Quebecers.

There is another very important element in this motion: the consideration of various models of proportional representation—I will come back to this in a few minutes—and other forms of electoral reform. Naturally, since the start of the debate, the Liberals and the Canadian Alliance have taken some care to limit the discussion to the question of proportional representation. However, I draw to the attention of the House the fact that the NDP motion is also intended to make us think about other potential or foreseeable electoral reforms.

There is another part to the motion. Reference is made to committee deliberations leading to a way to combat the increasing regionalization of Canadian politics and the declining turnout of Canadians in federal elections. I will return to this in a few minutes.

First, though, I would say quite simply that it is a simplification to claim that the growing regionalization of Canadian politics and the declining turnout of Canadians in federal elections is the fault solely of the current electoral system.

I think that there is a host of reasons behind these two phenomena, and I think that it would be simplistic to say it was the fault of the electoral system alone.

I would now like to say a few words on proportional representation itself. Naturally the system of proportional representation appears attractive from several standpoints and would modernize the Canadian electoral system, since most democracies in the world have either integrated an element of proportional representation or have adopted the system of proportional representation in its entirety.

There are some significant benefits. Proportional representation, or at least the integration of a proportional component, could ensure better representation for minority groups such as cultural communities, the disabled and women.

Political parties could decide to strike a balance between the number of women and men in the House of Commons and ensure that a larger number of women are on party lists, so as to increase women's representation. The same would go for young people. When it comes to representation, there are a number innovative solutions to be considered here.

Another very important and interesting factor with a system that is fully or partially based on proportional representation is the idea that parliament would better reflect the various ideologies among the public, that the House would better reflect these ideologies. This would allow the small political parties that have a difficult time getting candidates elected under a single constituency single ballot system to have a voice in parliament.

Incidentally, if Germany's electoral system did not have a proportional component, the Green Party would never have been represented in the Bundestag. Therefore, it is very important for small political parties to have a system based on proportional representation, so that they can be heard in parliament.

Proportional representation would also eliminate the inevitable distortions of the first past the post system. In a system such as ours, it is paradoxical that a government elected with 38% or 40% of the vote can run the country and have almost 100% of the power concentrated in its hands. With a system of proportional representation, the distortions inherent in the present system could be avoided.

As was pointed out earlier, a system of proportional representation would result in greater co-operation among the various political parties in the House, since the very survival of a government, or its composition, depends on co-operation and even coalitions between various political parties.

In countries with proportional representation, there is less of this very rigid dichotomy between the government, which has all the powers and sees itself as being in a position of almost dictatorial authority for four years between elections, and the opposition, which does its best to represent the public interest to the fullest extent possible.

There are certain disadvantages to the system of proportional representation. Thought needs to be given to how proportional representation can eventually be incorporated into the existing system while trying to avoid those disadvantages. We need only think of the instability to which a system of proportional representation can lead. We have seen this especially in countries with a pure representation by population system, such as Israel. This gives rise to a certain instability. Governments are not in power for long and depend on the co-operation of the various parties forming a coalition.

There was talk of a pizza parliament here, with five political parties. What sort of parliament would there be with seven, eight or nine parties?

This would definitely be problematical and the situation will have to be addressed within a study of electoral and parliamentary reform. There could eventually be more than five political parties. The rules would have to be changed to accommodate that reality.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has raised the problems connected to integrating proportional representation with a first past the post system, in Germany for example. To all intents and purposes, this leads to the creation of two categories of MPs. How can the two categories be reconciled: those elected by a riding and those elected from a list put forward by their party?

This takes us to another problem we will eventually have to address: to whom MPs are answerable in a pure or mixed proportional representation system. To whom are they answerable? If elected by the population of a riding, we tend to think they are answerable to the people who elected them. If elected from a list provided by the party, are they still answerable to the people, or to the party? There is a problem here. How are we going to reconcile all this?

I can foresee another really serious problem with the proportional representation system, for the same reasons as were just given by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle relating to the opportunity the various regions and components of a federation would have to make their voice heard, if the electoral system tends to uniformize expectations and programs countrywide.

As the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has said, a vote in Newfoundland has the same importance as a vote in British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Quebec. Obviously, for members of a federation who have particular needs and expectations and wish to make these known through a federal parliament, a proportional representation system can be somewhat problematic. I am, of course, referring to the very specific case of Quebec's position within the Canadian federation.

How could we, if the system of proportional representation is intended to give a platform to the most isolated ideas, give a platform in a system such as this to a province that is, to all intents and purposes, isolated within a federation, because it is the only province with a francophone majority? Clearly in our case this could create fairly significant problems.

The motion before us talks as well of examining other forms of electoral reform. I would not want the government to close the door on this idea of the NDP simply because it does not share the view that there should be proportional representation.

At the moment, a system is in place in Canada, and, as we know full well, it has certain imperfections. Winston Churchill said that democracy was the least perfect of the political systems. Our elections act, however democratic it may be, contains certain imperfections and warrants a look.

The last election showed us just how many gaps there are in the current elections act. It needs corrective measures. If there is one thing the all party committee should consider with respect to the Elections Act, it is first and foremost applying corrective measures immediately to the existing act.

We need think only of the issue of the appointment of returning officers. In the latest election, a number of incidents occurred across Canada arising clearly from the inexperience and, in certain cases, I would even say the incompetence of returning officers in a number of ridings. Why is this the case? Simply because returning officers are appointed not for their ability but because of their partisan allegiance.

Opposition parties are not the only ones to be concerned. The Lortie commission, which the government House leader quoted extensively earlier, wrote the following on page 483 of its report, and I quote:

A cornerstone of public confidence in any democratic system of representative government is an electoral process that is administered efficiently and an electoral law that is enforced impartially. Securing public trust requires that the election officials responsible for administration and enforcement be independent of the government of the day and not subject to partisan influence.

This is not from mere opposition members. It is from the report of the Lortie commission on electoral reform and party financing.

Let me also mention a statement made by the chief electoral officer himself, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, on October 28, 1999. He said:

—when I go out on the international scene I do not recommend that the Canadian system be emulated where it comes to the appointment of returning officers. I clearly indicate, as I do in Canada, that the present system is an anachronism.

Some changes could definitely be made to the existing Elections Act regarding the appointment of returning officers, the financing of political parties, the cap on contributions and the restrictions as to their source.

I will conclude by saying that it is wrong to think or to suggest that all the problems referred to in the motion, whether regionalization or the declining interest of Canadians in institutions and policies, are only due to the electoral system.

One only has to think about the government's ethics to see why the public is losing interest, or why the Canadian federation is dysfunctional when it comes to regionalization.

We should not try to explain or trivialize this issue by saying that it is simply a matter of reforming the Elections Act.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments made on both sides of the House. The proportional representation being discussed today is very valuable, and it should have been raised. I appreciate the fact that everyone has been able to comment on this.

There were some things that were said that I take exception to though. One came from my colleague in the Bloc who paraphrased my caucus colleague's comments as freedom of expression is a waste of time. That is not the case at all. That is not what he was saying. He was saying why raise the expectations of the House if there will be no a vote on the issue.

Another thing I find very offensive is that part of this is saying there should be quotas. I do not accept quotas in any form. I do not think people should be put in the House of parliament based on their gender, disabilities or anything of that nature. People are put in the House to represent the public based on merit. That is the way it should stay.

I also took exception to some comments that were made by the government House leader when he said “force their own agenda on a nation as a whole”. I believe that is what we are talking about when we talk about having some sort of reform. There are people in parts of this country who rightly believe that they have had the agendas of one party forced on them. Any sort of parliamentary change that could lead to more freedom across the country would be a benefit to all of us.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments. First of all, I must say that I tend to agree with her last comment regarding the intrinsic merits of parliamentary reform, of electoral reform or of reform of our democratic institutions in general and of its impact on the public good.

I would, however, like to make two points with respect to my comment on freedom of expression. For the benefit of the Canadian Alliance member, I did indeed understand that the point she was making was simply that there is not much use raising an issue in the House if it is not put to a vote. I have already said that I agreed with this point of view.

Nonetheless, and contrary to what she said, I am far from thinking that what we are doing here today is a pointless waste of time. In this regard, I pointed out that, if we took logic to its ultimate extreme, we could conclude that freedom of expression is a waste of time.

As for the issue of quotas, I do not know if she was referring to my own speech, but I did not advance the suggestion that there should be quotas for youth, the disabled, cultural minorities and women, far from it.

I merely said that, in a system of proportional representation, political parties could increase the representation of women, youth, the disabled or cultural minorities simply by selecting those whose competence is beyond reproach and who also meet these other criteria, if I may say so, by putting them on their lists for proportional representation.

To reply to my colleague's question with respect to quotas, that was what I was talking about.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois.

If I recall correctly, some time ago, when he was the Premier of Quebec and leader of the Parti Quebecois, René Lévesque was in favour of proportional representation. I am certain that all members of the Bloc Quebecois share Mr. Lévesque's point of view.

Is the Bloc Quebecois whip in favour of a particular model of proportional representation? This is my first question.

My second relates to Australia, which has the same system for the House of Commons and also a Senate that is elected by a system of proportional representation. That would be another way to go.

Today, we are having a discussion just on the principle of proportional representation. There are, however, a number of models of this, including the Italian, German, Australian, and English models. There are a variety of models, therefore.

If we had an agreement in principle to use certain elements of this system here, we could have an important discussion on the which model we could have in Canada. This is why I have these questions for my friend and colleague from the Bloc Quebecois.

Is he in favour now of a model for the system of proportional representation and what does he want to see done with the Senate, which is not elected? Do we need to have elections for the Senate? What could we do about that other institution?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague is quite right to point out that, like the Parti Quebecois, the Bloc Quebecois came out at its last convention in support of the idea of proportional representation in an independent Quebec. There is not a shadow of a doubt about that.

I explained earlier that, within the present federal system, for the reasons he gave regarding the protection of smaller or less important groups, we have some concerns about the application of a system of proportional representation across Canada.

I also expressed other concerns and reservations with respect to the system of proportional representation, but generally we recognize the advantages of such a system.

That said, to respond to my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle, I return to the wording of the motion, which invites us to examine various models with a view to defining what would be most desirable for Canada and, more broadly, and not simply with respect to proportional representation, what electoral reforms would be appropriate for Canada.

In this regard, I agree entirely with the idea of creating such a committee, or of giving such a mandate to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Generally speaking, the committee's mandate is to oversee the reform, if necessary, of federal parliamentary structures and procedures.

As for the Senate, Canadians' lack of interest in federal politics in general, which is growing as we saw during the last federal election, since the participation rate was among the lowest in Canadian history, relates, as I said earlier, to this whole issue of rather opaque transparency, if I can use that expression, on the government's part, to its control over the affairs of the state. The government's ethics are questionable, to say the least.

I do think that the Senate is itself a perpetual irritant to the collective psyche of Canadians and Quebecers, who do not see the need, in a modern world, for such an archaic institution. If the Senate must be reformed, then so be it. But as I think the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said, I feel that we should consider abolishing it instead.

It is clear that in the current context the Senate, in its present form, does not arouse, if I may use that expression, the interest of voters in federal politics. Rather, they feel that an old system is being perpetuated, a system that no longer matches the new realities, a transparent democratic policy, an exemplary public policy of integrity.

The majority of our fellow citizens, as we know, see the Senate as a house of patronage.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to share my time with this handsome young man, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

The motion before us calls attention to the serious problem confronting the Canadian system of government. I congratulate and thank the New Democratic Party for bringing forward the matter for debate in the House.

Our system of government and the means by which we are elected are in crisis. This is a horrible situation brought about by voter cynicism and apathy. I need not tell the House that voter turnout rates have been declining. Everyone has been talking about it. There is a marked sense that it does not matter if I vote or not. That is what I hear back home.

They talk about the fact that many of the backbenchers on the government side have to do what they are told. They have to vote the way they are told. People have lost faith in the parliamentary system.

It is insufficient for us to examine only the problems facing our system if we do not take a critical look at ourselves to determine what has caused this dark shadow which has cast itself over our democracy. While we do not as yet have the official report from the chief electoral officer on the 2000 general election, it is clear that there is a growing indifference toward the political system across Canada.

Canadians are opting for single issue groups instead of political parties as a place to voice their concerns. We see it every day on the Hill. People come up here to protest because they feel that their voices are not being heard in the House of Commons.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Yours is.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

I am glad to hear that. The Liberal member just said that my voice is being heard. I would like my people back in Saint John to know that.

As the motion points out, there is disturbing evidence of continued regional alienation. That is a sad thing. Today we see a five party system in the House of Commons. Before 1993 we did not see that. This has caused a great deal of problems in the House. A government that makes light of regional differences and whose Canada is the Canada of the sixties and seventies has created part of that problem.

Another problem is the abuse of the trust and authority vested in us as members of parliament and in the members yonder who have formed the government.

Last fall's election was totally unnecessary. It was called early, not out of conviction but out of convenience for the Liberal Party. Calling an election when the opposition was not yet prepared was about politics and not about principles.

Elections Canada has suggested that the federal election cost taxpayers over $200 million. Let us imagine what incredible benefits we could have received by using that $200 million in other ways.

Let us think of the ever present crisis in the health care system. If we assume an average of $150,000 for a doctor, we could have afforded 1,274 more family physicians. We could have had over 5,000 more nurses. We could have funded a four year medical program at Dalhousie University for over 6,000 students.

Let us imagine the appreciation of the Canadian people had the federal government invested in 80 MRI units at a cost of about $2.5 million each instead of wasting $200 million. St. Joseph's Hospital and the Saint John Regional Hospital in my riding would have been eternally grateful if the federal government had invested in new equipment for our hospitals.

The government could have chosen to give that money directly back to Canadian taxpayers. If it wanted to give a GST rebate on heating oil, it could have provided all Canadians with it, not just those who are in jail. This would have cost a total of $118 million.

The government could have provided a $500 tax credit for emergency service volunteers, such as our brave volunteer firefighters. The excise tax on diesel fuel could have been eliminated. This is a tax that is crippling our trucking industry for the same $200 million that the government instead chose to spend on an exercise in personal ambition.

Fifteen minutes ago I was passed a document which states that Canadian government officials suggest that the monetary funding of the Kosovo project for the RCMP and the police forces for budget years 2001-02 and 2002-03 will suffer significant budget cuts. This is once again because the money was wasted. This is not what the people of Canada want.

I do not have to tell members that there are many in our country who are far less fortunate than we are. A $200 million investment in our food banks could provide well over 36 million meals, 2 million food baskets for families in need or could fund 610 food banks for a full year. The possibilities are endless.

Three areas where that money could have been spent that are close to my heart include fully compensating the merchant navy veterans, putting that money directly into new equipment for our armed forces, or even the establishment once and for all of a national shipbuilding policy.

When Canadians see such government waste, when they see so many missed opportunities, is it any wonder why they have lost faith in parliament? It distresses me greatly that our people are so indifferent to who now forms the government of our country that they are unwilling to vote. In the process they elect officials by default.

The NDP motion suggests that one option might be some form of proportional representation but it also allows for other electoral reforms. The door is open to other potential avenues of change.

In the last election the PC Party platform recognized the importance of electoral reform and promised to examine a number of possible changes, including proportional representation in run off elections.

We also recognize that many people are happy with the status quo. We do agree that there needs to be a full and open debate before any change can be contemplated. We must gauge whether there is an appetite in the country for the kind of dramatic changes to our basic principles of government that might well be needed to set our system straight. The motion agrees with our position and calls on the House to begin a serious study of all the alternatives that are worthy of our support.

Reaching back through our PC heritage, I must caution members of the perils of opening what are really constitutional questions. There are always difficulties in the details.

Discussions of that kind have always brought with them a balanced share of both unity and division. I believe we all agree in the House that one thing our country does not need is further division.

My party has proposed that we restore the value of our parliament for Canadians to have faith in their system of government. The onus is on us to make the system worthy of their pride.

Part of the restoration involves our giving power back to the people and the elected representatives who they send to Ottawa, not only the Prime Minister or those he chooses for his cabinet.

Our American neighbours elect a president and I am thankful to the Fathers of Confederation that they resisted the temptation to forge our country in their image. Simple matters of compassion and common sense have become issues of competence in government.

We all know of examples when members of the governing party have wanted to vote against their party's stand but have been intimidated and threatened until they have literally broken down into tears or they have been forced to sit on the opposite side as an independent. This was the case with respect to child pornography, hepatitis C and the ethics counsellor.

It is important for us to praise those precious few members on the other side who have had the courage in the past, some even in the recent past, to challenge their government when they believe it to be wrong.

At the end of the day the challenges we must overcome as a parliament are varied and wide ranging, so too must be the options we examine.

I say again without hesitation that the New Democratic Party and the member for Halifax should be commended for bringing the issue to the House for debate. Whatever the solution to our problems may be, it is only through reasoned debate in this great House and in the homes of Canadian families that we will arrive at it.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a comment in terms of our electoral system compared to the rest of the world. I have a list of 98 countries that have a proportional representation system or a semi-proportional representation system in their legislatures dependent on whether they are a unicameral state or, in the lower house, of a bicameral state like we have in our country.

There are also countries that have proportional representation in the second House. Australia, for example, has first past the post in the lower house and they have proportional representation in the senate. Most countries in the world do have a system that has PR.

I would like to take a minute to place on the record some of the countries that do have a PR system. They are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and Venezuela, just to mention a few. Since PR—