Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2001

Canada Elections Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the House for failing to give credit to the Alliance member for North Vancouver for producing the number of 12 MPs which I proposed today.

[The Speaker]

I am not sure that sounds quite like a point of order.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that the member for North Vancouver did not in fact introduce the 50 number that is being used for all important rights under this law.

[The Speaker]

I think it is apparent that we seem to be in an argument rather than on a point of order, interesting as it may be. These are not uncommon in the Chamber.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that a dozen is certainly a good, round number. I know that my colleague from North Vancouver proposed that, and in fact the government listened. The government House leader just said that it could have been 15, it could have been 12, but I see that he took the expert and wonderful advice of one of my colleagues, my colleague from North Vancouver.

I would like to talk for a few minutes today about this particular bill. I am amazed, I suppose, but I probably should not be. The fact that this went to court and had to get resolved there is what forced the government to act. It just seems kind of pathetic. Surely if something is worthwhile changing, it is, and dear knows there were more things in the Canada Elections Act that the government could have changed other than this one thing, but the government always seems to be spurred on by a court decision. Everything is reactive in this government. It does not just think something is a wonderful idea and go ahead with it. The courts act in such and such a way and that triggers a reaction to something that the government needs to react to.

Bill C-9 wants to amend the Canada Elections Act. My colleague for Lanark—Carleton has talked about the numbers and how it is a consistent thing anyway.

When we look at the number of people that we need in the House for a party to be registered or acknowledged or recognized as an official party, I know something about it, as you know, Mr. Speaker. I sat here certainly as a proud member of a political party and with much machinery around the country, but I was treated as an independent here in the House of Commons. I know you were certainly kind to me and I do appreciate that. You did know the rules and regulations, as has obviously now been proven. You are sitting in the big chair, as it were. You provided me with a great deal of help. I remember Speaker John Fraser was very kind to me too because he said that after all I had won an election fairly and squarely.

So I have a vested interest certainly in speaking out on behalf of those who belong to smaller political parties. In fact, I remember that when the Reform Party fielded its first candidates in the 1988 election several of us ran. I think we fielded candidates in 72 out of the 88 western ridings. However, until we of course got to that magic number of 50, everyone was concerned because we were not able to act as if we were a full blown political party. I remember that there was great excitement when we got to that number and were able to say that we really could be recognized.

It seems passing strange to me that a government would react. That seems to be the substance of the government: only when pushed into something does it act.

However, let us look at some of the issues. Even though a party may field 12 candidates and be a registered party, is it registered? Not really. We could talk about it, but in fact it is just deemed to be a political party, not a registered party. If we look at the House of Commons now and at the precedent which has been set for some time that we need to have 12 members to be recognized, I would have loved to have had that changed when I was sitting as an “independent” member here, but the rules and the traditions were that a party needed a dozen members.

When we look at this law, we see that it moves to a dozen, which is a good first step, but the party is still not a “registered” political party. That means it cannot use all the tools that are available. It just seems most unfortunate. Even though they have 12 candidates they are not able to obtain a final list of electors.

It has not even been three months since we have come into the new parliament. The election was less than three months ago and when I look around at what all of us went through in the election campaign, I would like to tell the House a couple of tales from the trail.

This was in Edmonton North specifically, but I know that this happened not just there. In fact, when I think about this final list of electors, whereby we have gone to a permanent enumeration, what a nightmare that is for areas of the country such as the constituency I represent in Edmonton North, where there are new houses being built daily. Every time I go out door knocking there is an entire new subdivision there. I am not sure if it is the same in Kingston and the Islands, but I know things are hot in Edmonton North.

Our returning officer is Phyllis Basaraba, for whom I have an incredible amount of respect. I appreciated so much the work she did. However, she was not given the tools. We went into the Elections Canada office which she was trying like crazy to get up and running because the election came so quickly. My campaign team was going out into new areas of Bellerive and new housing developments which were being built so quickly, and they were drawing maps. Elections Canada had no idea of these new places. My guys were out door knocking and were drawing physical maps of where houses were and where lakes were. We would then take these maps over to the returning office and say “Guess what? There are 836 houses in this district”. They would say that they had absolutely no idea of these people on the electors list.

Something is wrong there. It is not just the smaller political parties that would not have access to final voters lists. Surely we need to get proper lists in place. That is a real deficiency I see in the Canada Elections Act and is surely something the government could have and should have come up with. Maybe it would have come up with it if it had been taken to court about it, but it always has to be reactive instead of proactive. This was something from this last election that was very difficult.

Obtaining free broadcast time is another difficulty. Having represented a smaller political party in days gone by, I know that there is always that battle about free advertising time in political broadcasting, which is certainly something that people should have the advantage of.

Also, there is the whole idea of issuing tax receipts to donors. Again, a legitimate party should be able to issue tax receipts at any time of year, not just during a writ period.

Mr. Speaker, someone whom you know and remember well, Elwin Hermanson, has left this place and is the leader of the Saskatchewan Party now. In fact, he is the leader of Her Majesty's official opposition in Saskatchewan. You certainly know him and remember him well. He is a fellow who did a tremendous job in the House. There he is out in Saskatchewan now.

I know this may be provincial—it could be federal—but the bottom line is that his party was not able to issue tax receipts to anyone at any time, even during the writ. When those people ran in the last election about a year and a half ago, there were people of goodwill saying “Here is a hundred bucks because I believe in the cause”. I thought not being able to issue tax receipts at all was just scandalous. If these people are going to operate as a legitimate political party, they certainly should have the right to be able to get those tax receipts issued.

Of course the NDP in Saskatchewan, I am reminded, had a federal wing or cousin, if you will, so it was able to swap receipts back and forth or be registered as a provincial party under the federal one. Of course there was no corollary to the Saskatchewan Party at the federal level.

This seems ludicrous to me. Of course as we know the Saskatchewan Party gave the NDP a good run for its money, even without tax receipts, and Elwin is coming very close to being the premier of Saskatchewan. Dear only knows what will happen during the next election.

When I look at some of those things I think there really are some fundamental injustices. I am not going to leap to the defence of the Communist Party either, but if we do really believe in free speech we ought to believe in free speech when it is good for us and when it is not so good for us.

I certainly am not JoJo the psychic, but I do know that there is going to be court challenge. I will bet a loonie that these smaller political parties will win, because Figueroa did it and someone else is going to do it next. If it is not the Communist Party, it will be some other party.

Let me talk just for a moment again about the reimbursement of election expenses that was provided for under Bill C-2, which was a major revision of the Canada Elections Act. The government is making some small and tinkering amendments to it.

Here is one that maybe they should have paid a whole lot more attention to. Under this provision, only registered parties, those parties that run more than 50 candidates, or now more than 12, will be reimbursed for election expenses providing they obtain either 2% of the national vote or 5% of the aggregate vote in their riding in which they endorse candidates.

Although my party opposes election rebates, we do not believe it is fair that only registered parties should be able to do that. I agree with my colleague, who said it so well, if people are going to vote for those candidates they have every right to do that whether I agree with them or not. I do not think it is fair to punish people by not allowing them to be reimbursed for their election expenses.

When we talk about registered parties versus political parties, those parties that will not be able to get the benefits of full registered parties, I certainly think that sounds like two tier democracy. We all know this government hates to be thought of as endorsing two tier anything but we see proof of it all the time.

If we look at health care, it is just amazing that the government stands up and says that it is the champion and the saviour of universal health care. It is not universal. Many times across the country we see that diversity and a real serious problem with a government that says one thing and of course does another.

HRD grants, immigrant investor loans or something in the industry department are other examples where we see that there really is a two tier system alive and well with this government, and that is unfortunate.

Again today we see evidence that the government believes in two tier democracy. Obviously for members of the government, which has a majority and did fairly well in the last few elections, they are able to stand up and say that they are tier one. They get all the lists, the free broadcast time and the reimbursement of their election expenses. They can tell us that they are sorry for us folks but that we do not get reimbursed. That is two tier.

If we talk about democracy and the right to free speech, then it seems to me that it should be absolutely equivalent for everybody. Let the voters decide that, not the government.

It is important to make sure that the government is really concerned about this issue. It has to be proactive not just reactive, and not take the position that it knows best.

As the House knows, a party can be in government for a while, perhaps a little too long for some of us, but nonetheless, sooner or later it will be in opposition again. That is just as sure as God made little green apples. However, when a party is in government it is such an easy thing to assume that it knows everything, that it has all the answers and that it really does believe in fairness, but it then brings in legislation like this. It is a good little start but there are so many other things it could have done.

What could we do to the Canada Elections Act to make it better? How about enumeration? A little earlier in my remarks I talked about the fact that enumeration was just unbelievable. The returning officers across the country were about ready to tear their hair out during the last election.

First, we have a shorter writ period. When I think about the last election it amazes me how so many things happened and there were such frustrations regarding the enumeration. The whole idea of registered political parties is amazing.

Let me talk about advance voting. I would like to comment for just a few moments on some of the advanced polling horror stories. I have more tales from the trail.

I called into the 1-800 vote number. It took me some time because it seemed to me that no one was ever available there. In the last election I sent people directly to my returning office. That was far more successful and they got tremendous answers. Of course they could get through on the lines or else just drop in to the Northtown Mall where Phyllis Basaraba and her really good crew of people were working.

However, when I phoned the 1-800 number it was like phoning someone on a teenage line. It was almost impossible to get through. When I did get through, this is what happened. I said to the person on the line that my name was Deborah Grey and that I was calling from Edmonton North—Deborah being my first name, which is not exactly unrecognizable as a woman's name—and I was told not once but twice “Just a moment, sir.” This was Elections Canada talking to me, a candidate but also a member of parliament. I said my name was Deborah, not Chris, Terry, Pat or something like that. I said that it was Deborah Grey calling and I was told “Okay, Sir, I'll be right with you”. This made me nervous right off the bat, as one could guess, and I did not, I must confess, have 100% faith in the system as it were.

Well it went from bad to worse because the person asked me what riding I was calling from. I told the person I was calling from Edmonton North. I thought that was pretty simple and straightforward. The person then asked me what province I was in. This was a person from Elections Canada. This was the 1-800-VOTE where answers were to be given to all our problems. Susie Voter could phone in and ask these questions, not that I deserve special treatment, but I was the MP, the candidate phoning in and I was being asked what province Edmonton North was in.

If there is any way that is defensible, I would be really happy to hear it. To me this seems inexcusable from people who are supposed to have the answers. I recall saying that Edmonton is a little town out west and the capital of Alberta.

If I had still been in Beaver River, I could buy that they would have a difficult time because who knows where Beaver River is. Those of us who live in the area certainly know, but I could understand somebody at the other end of the country not having a sweet clue frankly of where Beaver River is, but Edmonton North is a bit of a hint that it could be the capital city of Alberta.

Holy smokes, there are just unbelievable problems in the system. It is no wonder Canadians get frustrated with the whole idea of whether the electoral system works or whether parliament works when the 1-800 number does not even work. How do we run the country?

There is something else I found difficult under the Canada Elections Act, particularly with the changes that were made under Bill C-2, and something I think the government should be addressing in Bill C-9. If it is going to address amendments to the Canada Elections Act under Bill C-9 then it should do it, do it once and do it right.

We have the Canadian citizenship idea where someone could ask a person if he or she is a Canadian citizen. Someone could respond by saying yes but we would not be able to ask for proof.

I just spent a couple of nice weeks in Mexico with my husband. When I was asked if I was a Canadian citizen I said, yes, but the authorities were not terribly impressed with my charming spirit and smile, and the fact that I had said yes, so they asked for my passport. They wanted proof and they had every right to ask for proof. I had my passport and I showed it to them. I knew I was a Canadian citizen. I knew I had proof and I was happy to provide it. However, here in Canada we are not allowed to do that.

If any substantive changes were going to be made to the Canada Elections Act that proof of citizenship should have been one of them for sure. I certainly think that it was high time for that but there is absolutely nothing in here. I have flipped through all these pages and it is just amazing.

When we look at the whole idea of democracy and the frustration of people we see that they really are kind of tired of voting. They do not think it will make a whole lot of difference anyway. I find it sad that we had the lowest voter turnout in a great while. Something has to stimulate the excitement of the Canadian public for them to believe that it really does matter that they participate in democracy. It is unfortunate when we see that democracy itself is pretty unhealthy right now with low voter turnout.

The chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, says that maybe we should have mandatory voting. I do not know if that it is the answer, although I do appreciate that people are at least asking the questions about what we can do to make sure that this place becomes a hair more relevant in people's lives, other than just in their chequebooks, pocketbooks and pay stubs. I really do think we need to make some serious changes in terms of making sure that democracy works better.

On page 83 of his book, Straight from the Heart , which was written in 1985, the Prime Minister, when he was treasury board president, said that in order to keep control the government made a lot of political judgments by itself and many decisions were reached in conversations in the corridors of parliament. He also wrote that he did not permit a lot of questions and that the system gave him a lot of clout. Is that not something to brag about, eh?

That is not democracy, that is pathetic. He went on to say on page 43 that in his judgment maybe no more than 50 MPs make a personal difference in the outcome of their elections. He also said that the rest tended to rely on the appeal of their leader and the luck of belonging to the winning party. He then said that the risk was that MPs would become more marginal, more expendable and at the mercy of the leadership.

He continues in the book to say that certainly fewer backbenchers will be prepared to give their leaders frank advice or tell them to go to hell if they know when they can be replaced. That was written by our present Prime Minister in 1985.

Just a couple of weeks ago in China the Prime Minister said “Ah, all the terra cotta statues. It is something like being home with my backbenchers”. Is this something to brag about democracy? I hardly think so.

Being from the west I just could not let my speech wind down without this statement regarding the west which is on page 159 of the Prime Minister's book. He said that the lack of political representation was a problem, a vicious circle that we did not know how to break. He said that the less the west was represented the more alienated it felt, and the more alienated it felt the less it chose to vote Liberal and the less it was represented. There it is. Is the be all and end all to get seats in parliament to say one is in power for the sake of being in power? No.

Let us aim to be in power so that we can really make a difference, that we can have a vision for moving forward and that this place, parliament itself, becomes a little more relevant to people right across Canada. Canadians should be able to say that they voted and that they made a difference because Canada will be a better place.

When I see the timid changes that the government is attempting, I say that we have to go for it. Fix it once, fix it right and let us make sure that the Canada Elections Act does become a whole lot more relevant to all of us.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, in the same spirit of co-operation we showed our Canadian Alliance colleagues, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes have unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

To begin with, we will be supporting this legislation. We will be doing so because it is consistent with the Figueroa decision handed down in Ontario. It ensures that we conform to the spirit of this decision. I will say, however, that we are not happy to be giving the bill our support, and I will explain why.

First of all, when one looks at the actual bill and reads it, it is clear that it is very brief. It contains only a few clauses. At first blush, it might appear that this is really a relatively minor or superficial bill. It is true that, in terms of content, it is brief. It will not go down in history for its length.

While the bill may seem fairly minor and innocuous, what is troubling to say the least is the government's attitude.

I believe that, by its very nature and by its very content, this bill reflects the arrogant and cynical attitude of this government, which feels that it embodies truth and innate knowledge.

We have before us today a bill which is evidence of all the haste with which the Elections Act reform was carried out during the last parliament. We proceeded precipitously. And why did we? Because the government waited until halfway through its mandate to bring in the amendments it intended to make to the Elections Act. The government was planning, anticipating, a rush election. It wanted to move as quickly as possible to pass new legislation, so that the chief electoral officer would have the time—we are talking six months or so—to implement the provisions of the new legislation before the election was called.

The fact is that, indeed, the provisions of the election legislation rushed through in 1999-2000, if I am not mistaken, took effect at the very beginning of September 2000, so the government was in a position to call a snap election.

Speaking of haste, this bill is an illustration, a proof of the haste with which the government moved during the last parliament in order to get the Elections Act changed, with its bill number 2, Bill C-2.

First, Bill C-9, which is before the House today, contains provisions intended to ensure linguistic concordance, since it appears that the Elections Act, under which the most recent federal elections were held, contained linguistic concordance problems. In other words, some provisions did not say exactly the same thing in English and in French.

Had the government taken the time to properly study Bill C-2 and not rushed it through, perhaps we would have had the time to catch these little language errors and prevent them from having any effect during an election campaign on the interpretation of the law.

Happily—of course the matter is not over yet—it appears that the problems of interpretation in linguistic terms did not cause any catastrophes in the last election.

I will give an example. In the bill before us, clauses 18 and 19 are two provisions intended to bring the French text into line with the original English text with respect to the rules governing the allocation of free broadcasting time and the purchase of air time during the election campaign. The period during which air time is available to the political parties and candidates is defined as the period between the time the election was called and polling day. In French, the text reads “jusqu'à minuit le jour du scrutin”.

On closer examination of the English, we find “At midnight on the day before polling day”. They just forgot to say “À minuit, la veille du jour du scrutin”. That makes a fair difference. It is not a minor error. It is a detail, which could have made all the difference during the latest election campaign, in some ridings, even across Canada.

Here is another example. Clause 4 of Bill C-9 talks of the provisions concerning information to be contained in the register of electors.

It states that it shall contain:

—any other information that is provided under subsections 49(2), 194(7), 195(7), 223(2), 233(2) and 251(3).

It was simply not noticed that, in Bill C-2, the reference was to subsection 195(7) and not, as it was passed in the last parliament, to subsection 195(3). The wrong subsection was amended. The reference is to the wrong subsection. This is another example of haste and sloppy work.

Another example is when the bill refers to generally accepted accounting principles, concepts that the Bloc Quebecois incorporated in Bill C-2, by the way.

As for the generally accepted accounting principles in clause 21, the government simply forgot to include these provisions in subparagraphs 403( b )(i) and (ii). Could this have made a difference? Of course it could have. This is another example of how Bill C-2 was rushed through, without the time being taken to do a proper job.

Why? Simply to satisfy the partisan goals of the government. This is completely and utterly unacceptable.

I was talking about party politics. Is there anything more vital to democracy than an electoral bill? It seems to me that such a bill must be acceptable to most if not all political parties taking part in the process. Everyone must agree with the process if it is to be accepted by civil society in general.

But, as I said earlier, in the reform of the Canada Elections Act during the last parliament, the government's approach was to brazenly put party politics and its political interests ahead of seeking a consensus with opposition parties.

We have seen this in several regards. The government's reform of the Canada Elections Act is essentially cosmetic and superficial. Naturally, it has been amended to be more readable and logical. Of course, some changes were made to comply with previous rulings.

This reminds me of the comment made earlier by the hon. member for Edmonton North, who said that this government is much more reactive than proactive. It is true. We proposed all sorts of ideas during the review of Bill C-2 to amend the Elections Act, so as to make it better for our fellow citizens and so that it would reflect more democratic and modern electoral procedures. But, as I just said, the government decided instead to make only some minor cosmetic changes.

Bill C-2 was not the result of a consensus. It was rammed down our throat by the government. Yet, when he launched the consultation process, the government House leader, the minister responsible for Canada's electoral reform, had said “I want to ensure that we can co-operate with federal political parties—as has traditionally been the case in Canada—so that this bill will reflect a consensus”. Which consensus did this bill reflect? None. The government alone voted in favour of Bill C-2.

I would even go further. The government was so determined to ram this bill through and muzzle the opposition that it went so far as to see that, at third reading, only the government's spokesperson and one representative of the official opposition were allowed to speak to the bill.

Is there anything more despicable than to see the cornerstone of democracy, the elections act of a country, debated at third reading in the House, at the final stage, by only two political parties out of the five represented here in parliament?

The government's behaviour during consideration of Bill C-2 was absolutely outrageous.

The government pushed that bill through so fast that it had to come back to the House and say “Well, there are some minor changes we need to do, typos we need to correct. Would you be kind enough to let us correct these mistakes?”

The government is using the Figueroa ruling, which basically compels us to amend the elections act, to introduce a whole series of tiny minor changes, without of course embarking on an in depth reform of the legislation.

The government is saying “The system has served us well, let it be. We have been re-elected three times under the current election system, with three great majorities, do not change a thing”.

Is this not the party led by the same man who promised, as Leader of the Opposition, that the first thing he would do as Prime Minister would be to include proportional representation into the system?

Well, he was elected and all he had managed to do by the end of his second term was to introduce some slight cosmetic changes to the Canadian election system, because the system has served him well and has worked to his advantage. The government is far from willing to propose any significant amendments to the current election legislation.

Let me briefly go over some of the provisions found in this bill. Among others, the bill amends the Canada Elections Act to give a greater role to the Senate. Previously, if he wanted to carry out a pilot project, for example to test an electronic voting process, the chief electoral officer had to obtain, under Bill C-2, the approval of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, that deals with electoral matters.

Believe it or not, under Bill C-9, the one before us today, not only will the approval of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be required, but also the approval of the Senate committee that normally considers electoral matters. It takes some nerve to give to a committee made up of unelected parliamentarians the power to say to the Cyou chief electoral officer, “No, you cannot carry out a study on a new way for people to exercise their right to vote in an election”, or “Yes, you can go ahead, under this or that condition”.

Is it not ironic to call upon a committee made up of unelected parliamentarians to debate the Canada Elections Act, which concerns each and everyone of us as representatives of our constituents? This is somewhat embarrassing.

The main purpose of Bill C-9 is to enable a political party that has at least 12 candidates to have its name listed on the ballots along with the name of its candidates. Members will remember that the number of candidates required used to be 50. This bill would reduce the number to 12.

Obviously the Figueroa decision does not specify the number of candidates that would be acceptable in constitutional terms.

So the government proposed the number 12. The rational argument, the logic behind this government proposal, is this. It takes 12 MPs in the House for a party to become a recognized political party. Let us use the same figure for recognition of a political party on the ballot, even if the number of 50 candidates on a slate is still valid for the party to be able to take advantage of the tax benefits offered by the Government of Canada. That said, from now on, the number of candidates required before the party name would be given on the ballot would be 12.

Hon. members might well ask “Why 12? Why not two, five, or ten?” The government, of course, says “Yes, but a rational argument is required, and the rational argument is the rule whereby it takes 12 members in the House for a party to become a recognized political party”.

During the briefing session, a most interesting point was raised by a colleague from the Canadian Alliance. He asked “And what if Prince Edward Island wanted to try an experiment like the Bloc Quebecois did?” There are only six ridings on P.E.I., so how could one imagine the Bloc P.E.I. on the ballet? It would not be possible with only six ridings.

I imagine that this will give rise to a lot of debate on the matter, but I find it unfortunate that the government did not want to take advantage of the work done on the previous bill, Bill C-2, or of consideration of this one, Bill C-9, in order to make more substantial amendments to the Elections Act.

On Tuesday, we debated the possibility of striking a special all-party committee to examine the merits of various models of proportional representation and other electoral reforms. The government clearly indicated its lack of interest.

Let us not be surprised afterward when the people of Quebec and of Canada show even less interest in federal politics, having seen the lack of interest the government has in bringing in any reform whatsoever. Let us not be surprised that the voter turnout is constantly dropping, constantly waning, election after election, when we have a government with such a closed mind and such arrogance toward the public.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in turn to speak to Bill C-9 introduced by the government House leader and entitled an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

As my colleague, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, pointed out so well and to avoid being redundant, I will try to raise new points regarding our disappointment following the introduction of this bill.

For the benefit of our viewers and our colleagues in the House, I would simply point out that the Elections Act has to be changed as the result of a decision by the Ontario court of appeal regarding the identification of political parties on the ballots, known as the Figueroa case. In the past, a party had to run 50 candidates in a general election in order to be recognized and, therefore, to have its name appear on the ballot.

The Ontario court of appeal and the legislation before us reduces this number to 12 candidates, which apparently has a direct link with the rule of law used by the Ontario court of appeal. This rule provides that, in order to be recognized in the House, a party must have 12 members there, the figure 12 being an acceptable measure in our system.

That having been said, our disappointment has to do with the fact that nothing in this bill addresses certain points that the Bloc Quebecois members consider essential.

I will try to rise above party politics by saying that I am sure that the issues that I will be raising during the time allotted to me were a problem for members of all five parties in the House during the election held on November 27, 2000.

That is why I think that the government should have taken advantage of this bill, which amends the Canada Elections Act, to introduce improvements in the electoral process.

When people get out to vote, they are doing nothing more or less than practising democracy. I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that the inhabitants of the lovely Cornwall area and of your riding are capable of expressing an opinion on an MP. That is the purpose of an election.

The purpose of an election is to say “Do we agree with the person who has been representing us for the past few years? Do we agree with the person seeking the right to run for office? Do we agree with this party's platform? Do we agree with a whole range of things?”

The action one takes in leaving one's home, setting out in one's car, heading for the polling station and, behind a screen, voting for someone, is an eminently democratic one.

What governs this democracy? In Canada, it is called the Canada Elections Act.

The Bloc Quebecois would have expected the government to take advantage of this bill to amend certain features of the Canada Elections Act.

In any event, we know that, following an election, the chief electoral officer, Mr. Kingsley, will have to meet with members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to report on his work. Members of the Bloc Quebecois will have certain concerns. In the short time left to me, I want to share just a few of them with the House.

One is that there are no provisions in this bill for more democratic electoral financing.

When we look at the figures released by Elections Canada on party financing, we can see that the six major banks in Canada—which have made record profits in 1999 and 2000—make contributions to election funds. These record profits made by major banks are often accumulated at the expense of ordinary people who experience financial difficulties and who tell themselves “I have financial problems, I can no longer make the payments on my house or on my car”.

When the time comes to pull the plug, the major banks do not hesitate to do so. Nor do they hesitate to pocket billions of dollars in profits.

The parallel I would like to draw with profits is the following. When we look at the contributions made to election funds, whether it is to the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party or the Canadian Alliance Party, we realize that these major banks make generous contributions. This is why, following an election, the government has no interest in changing the rules on public financing in the Elections Act. The government looks at who provides the money to fund an election campaign.

It is not in the government's interest to change the Elections Act. When we look at the figures released by Elections Canada, we realize that major banks have made generous contributions to the old parties, the traditional parties.

We really thought that, when the government introduced a bill to amend the elections act, it would have taken the opportunity to support the notion of funding by ordinary citizens.

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, because of our public financing policy, have had to rely on $2, $5, $10 and $20 donations during the last and all the previous election campaigns. But the day after an election, we are not beholden to any of the multinational companies who contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to our election campaigns. We are funded by ordinary citizens who tell us “We think you are doing a great job. Here is $2 to carry on”. The day after the election, we are beholden only to ordinary citizens.

It would be in the interest of the government to agree to the motion put forward by one of the Bloc members on March 18, 1994. We in the Bloc are very consistent. The hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour brought forward Motion No. 150 which said:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation limiting solely to individuals the right to donate to a federal political party, and restricting such donations to a maximum of $5,000 a year.

This is one change we expected to see in the bill.

I know my time is running out; tempus fugit , as would have said my latin teacher at the Séminaire de Chicoutimi.

Second, we expected something about the designation of returning officers. What we want and what the people we represent want is a democratic electoral process that is administered in a more transparent fashion. So, there should not be any apparent conflict of interest in the appointment of election officials.

The returning officer, who is the most important election official in each of our ridings, is appointed on the recommendation of the governor in council. In parliamentary terms, it means that cabinet members, the main players, the prime minister's henchmen, recommend individuals to act as returning officers. In most cases, if we could look closely at the 301 returning officers, if we had time for such an exercise, we could see a clear link to the government party. I think this will be a good exercise for my next filibuster in committee. We will look at the qualifications of the 301 returning officers in Canada.

Right now, they are all Liberal supporters, but I can assure the House that, under the Conservatives—and we saw it in the 1993 election—returning officers were friends of that party. That proves what we, in the Bloc Quebecois, have always said: Liberals, Conservatives, it is all the same. That is very unfortunate.

Why not look at how things are done in the provinces? Quebec could be used as a model. I presume we do not only do bad things in Quebec. In Quebec, returning officers are appointed and confirmed following an open, transparent, competition in which their abilities may be made public, where people may be questioned. They are interviewed by representatives of all the political parties. Why could the appointment of returning officers not be a much more transparent process?

In connection with the NDP motion earlier in the week, the government referred to the Lortie Commission, the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing.

In the report of the Lortie Commission, at page 483, Commissioner Lortie concluded as follows:

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.

We can give examples of attitudes seen in the last election on November 27, 2000. Our memory has not been affected in this regard by the rigours of winter. Our wits are not dulled by temperatures reaching 27 below with the wind chill factor. It may be cold outside, but our heads are clear and we can recall the partisan decisions made by Liberal appointed returning officers in the last election. We could go on listing them until tomorrow morning.

I almost feel like asking for unanimous consent to continue my speech until I have finished listing all the acts or partisan action taken by returning officers in our ridings. There were—and I do not have enough time—the polling stations. In some instances they were located in tiny community centres where six or seven polling divisions were put together and the people were all packed in. They were voting just about beside each other. They could almost see who the person in the next booth was voting for.

Such things are totally unacceptable. Although there was a recreation centre nearby, people were sent five or six kilometres away from their community. I regret to inform hon. members that not everyone owns a car. Then there are the seniors. It was not exactly mid-July weather last November 27, hon. members will recall. There had been freezing rain. It was icy. Seniors were not able to exercise their right to vote.

Examples like these illustrate that there truly was partisanship as far as the returning officers were concerned.

Having spoken of physical locations, I could now go on to the last-minute additions to the voters' lists. At one point, only three days before the election, there were 7,000 or 8,000 new names on the list. These were people that had never been enumerated. No one knew where they came from. You can imagine Mr. Speaker—I hardly need say imagine, for you know, having yourself been elected in a riding—how that can complicate the election machinery to have to add 5,000 to 6,000 names three or four days before voting day.

I could also talk about the voting cards. Elections Canada provided people with a kind of voting card. In buildings with 64 apartments, voter information cards were left in the lobby, just like any ad-bag, newspaper or flyer from Canadian Tire or Pharmaprix. Some people were literally going to every apartment building picking up those cards. I have seen some people with 300 to 400 cards in their possession.

I am sorry, but I still feel very bitter about the last election. Many members on this side of the House, but also on the other side of the House—

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to direct the House's attention, if I could, to relevance. The hon. member has dealt with everything from freezing rain to voter cards. We are dealing with party recognition on a ballot.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I believe this is more a point of debate than a point of order. Relevancy is not always obvious. In the little time they are given, members may put forward arguments to try to get their point across. In this case, I find the arguments still sufficiently relevant for us to continue with the debate.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling. I know you made it not in my interest, but in the interest of fairness. At second reading, it is appropriate to address the principle of a bill, I believe.

I am almost tempted to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons what he is afraid of. Is he trying to hide something? Should we look a little deeper into what has been going on in his riding? I know it hurts. There are things we would rather not have to hear. But I was about to say that some of us on this side of the House were hurt by the work of some overly partisan returning officers.

Before the member interrupted me, I was going to say that I talked with some colleagues on the other side of the House who are not satisfied either with the application of the Canada Elections Act in the last general election.

I see the member for Hull—Aylmer is nodding in approval. This is not meant to be a partisan comment. I simply want to say that I am disappointed in the fact that the government did not take the opportunity provided by Bill C-9 to correct some problems in the Canada Elections Act, in the electoral process which is the democratic process through which people choose their representatives. That is the only message I want to convey.

I will say, in conclusion, that we will have the opportunity to come back to this issue when we hear the chief electoral officer before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We hope the government will agree to undertake a detailed, in-depth and non-partisan study of this bill and to hear, if need be, members from all parties in the House, not only those nasty members of the Bloc, but also members of all the other parties.

We talk to each other as parliamentarians. We may have different opinions, but we have the opportunity to exchange our views. I shall not reveal the nature of informal discussions I had with certain colleagues from other parties, but I can say that the Canada Elections Act was applied in a very twisted way in the last general election. We should look at it closely and think about amendments we could bring to ensure that democracy really exists in Canada and in Quebec.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver Island North, the Coast Guard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of Bill C-9 which is before the House at second reading.

The bill, as my colleagues have said, comes out of an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling on March 10, 1999, almost two years ago. It suggested that parliament violated the charter of rights when it made a decision in the old elections act that before a name could be listed on the ballot, a party had to have at least 50 candidates. Now there has been a recommendation to change that from 50 candidates to 12 candidates, reflecting the ruling we have in the House of Commons that to be an official party of the House of Commons it must have 12 members in its caucus.

We certainly agree with that. We think it is the right way to go. In terms of the elections act, anything we can do to democratize the process, to make the process more inclusive and more empowering for as many Canadians as possible, is the right way to go. That is what this is doing in a very small way.

Before I go on I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am splitting my time with my colleague from Palliser.

Regarding inclusiveness, one thing struck me about the debate today. I wonder if anyone from the Canadian Alliance wants to comment on this when I sit down. A few days ago in the House, one of its members introduced a private member's bill that would go in exactly the opposite direction. That was the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. His private member's Bill C-273, would amend the Parliament of Canada Act in terms of recognizing official parties in the House of Commons. The bill says: “This bill will provide that in order to receive official party status, a political party would at least have to have 10% of the seats in the House of Commons and members of parliament from at least three different provinces”. In other words, the Alliance bill would not recognize the Bloc Quebecois as an official party.

I know my good friend from Vancouver is a very progressive member of the Alliance Party, so I am not surprised he opposes this private member's bill.

However, maybe the party could clarify its stance. This bill, sponsored by the member of the Alliance Party, would exclude the Bloc Quebecois as an official party of the House because it only has MPs from one particular province. It would exclude the NDP because it does not have 10% of the membership of the House. It would exclude the Conservative Party because it does not have 10% of the membership of the House. That means it would exclude 63 MPs, so we would have 63 independents. Is that democracy? Is that inclusiveness? The three parties together received the votes of roughly one-third of the Canadian people.

I know the minister for financial institutions is scandalized by this kind of lack of democracy across the way. I would like to have the Canadian Alliance clarify where it stands on this very exclusive bill that has been put forth by the member from Saskatoon.

The bill we have before us today goes in the opposite direction. It says we should recognize an official party's name on the ballot that has at least 12 candidates recognized by the chief electoral officer. That is the way to go.

The goal is to have an electoral system in our country that is more inclusive, that is more democratic, that is more transparent, that is more available and that is more egalitarian to each and every single citizen regardless of who we are and where we come from.

Again, it is very strange to hear the Alliance Party criticize the Canada Elections Act for being tough on so-called third party advertising. Third party advertising should be regulated. Political parties represent different points of view and have strict spending guidelines at the national and the local levels. We must adhere to those guidelines and stipulations.

However, we have the Alliance Party advocating a wide open season, depending on how deep one's pocketbook is for special interest and lobby groups that want to get out there and spend a lot of money in fighting various political parties and political campaigns. Once again, this shows that it is not really concerned about basic and fundamental democracy which is so important to the ordinary citizens.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Because you lost the support of the big unions.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I know the member from Vancouver who just interjected would not agree with his party on this. He is more progressive than most of the sort of Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble people who populate that particular caucus. That is an important issue. Some of them, not necessarily the ones who are there now, but some with cowboy hats sit right behind him during question period. That is the stance of that party. It pretends to be democratic and populist right across western Canada but it says and does exactly the opposite things when it comes to the House of Commons.

I would be very interested during questions and comments to hear whether or not the Alliance members will support the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt's private member's bill which would effectively deny the democratic rights of 63 members of parliament, representing one-third of the population, to be recognized as political parties. On the other hand, they get up in the House and say they would support this bill that would reduce the number of candidates needed to have one's name on a ballot from 50 to 12.

There are other items we have to deal with when it comes to elections. One is the whole question of the voters list. There were about a million people left off the voters list in the last campaign. Primarily, they were people from low income areas and younger people. We need legislation on that as soon as possible. We had a commitment on that from the government House leader, who was in charge of the Canada Elections Act in the House of Commons, about a week or so ago.

The final point I want to make is we should do what the Canada Elections Act says we can do. We should look at a different method of voting. If we look under clause 2 of the bill before us, it says:

The Chief Electoral Officer may carry out studies on voting, including studies respecting alternative voting means—

As we said on our opposition day on Tuesday, we should be striking an all party committee to look at incorporating some elements of proportional representation into our voting system like most countries in the world. Almost every country in the world with 8 million or 9 million people has some PR in the system.

This morning we heard from the prime minister of Great Britain, the mother of our parliamentary system. In the last few years Great Britain has incorporated some PR into the Scottish parliament and into the Welsh parliament. It elects all its members to the European community in Brussels through proportional representation.

According to the Jenkins commission, which was set up a few years ago to look at electoral reform, the British parliament will probably adopt very soon a method of PR, if not in the next election, in the election that is coming in about five years time.

If the mother of parliaments can do that, we should be modernizing our system as well by moving toward a system of proportional representation that will allow the votes of every citizen to be treated as equal: all votes would be equal; all votes would carry weight; people could empower themselves; and there would no wasted votes.

The irony of the present system is that often Canadians do not vote for their first choice. Canadians often vote for one candidate to stop another. A good example is my friend, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. Thousands of Liberals, New Democrats, Green Party supporters and progressive people voted for him to stop the Alliance in Calgary Centre. They did so because he was more progressive. Obviously he is more progressive. I recognize that fact. He is a very progressive member of parliament. He is a red Tory. He is a progressive Tory, a very progressive person.

If we had a system of proportional representation we would have a system where people could vote for their first choice, vote for their philosophy, vote for the ideology. If it were a German type of system they would have a vote for their local MP and then a vote for their party preference in terms of a parliamentary list provided by each of the political parties. They could be voting for their first choice. Their first choice and vision would be part of the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada.

We should be looking at this as one of the possibilities in terms of passing the bill. The chief electoral officer could look into various systems of voting, different alternatives of voting and strike a committee to do just that.

We support the bill at second reading. The other parts of the bill are largely technical. Part of it is just making sure that the English version coincides with the French version and vice versa. We will be looking at some of those in more detail in committee.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the member to refer back to the private member's bill of the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt of the Canadian Alliance Party. I have a copy of it and it says that the bill would prevent fringe parties, such as the Progressive Conservative Party and the NDP, from having seats in the Commons.

I do not think of us as a fringe party, either the NDP or the Conservative Party. We perform a valuable service. We represent thousands of people.

When I read that my immediate thought was that we should refer to the Alliance Party as the fringe benefit party. Its members ran on promises. If they were elected their leader would not move into Stornoway, for example. They would turn it into a bingo hall. If we check who is living there now, we will find that the leader of the Alliance Party lives there.

They also said that they would not take a car for the leader. Their leader would not accept a car, and he has one now.

The ultimate flip-flop was the pension issue. I know candidates who ran in the 1993 election and lost their seats. They were hammered because righteous Alliance Party members said that they would never take a pension. Good candidates were defeated on that one issue.

Now they say they have families to look after. What about the families of the others that were misled, defeated and maligned? We should call it the fringe benefit party or the flip-flop party.

How does the hon. member think we could attract more people to vote? How could we re-establish credibility with the voters and the electorate? There was a very low turnout in the last election. It was shameful that so few people felt motivated to vote.

I would like the hon. member to address how we could present a better package, not as a party but as a group of politicians. How could we attract more voters?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the best way of doing that is by practising what we preach, by being true to our word, true to our commitment, true to our principles and true to our promises in a campaign.

The member summed up the Alliance Party. Its members said they would never move into Stornoway and they did. They said they would never take a pension and they did. They said they would never eat in the parliamentary restaurant and they do. They said they would never travel business class on an airplane and they do.

They think all voters should be equal, all people should be equal and all provinces should be equal. Then they introduce a private member's bill in the House which says that parties should not be equal, that the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservatives should not be official parties. Those parties represent one-third of the Canadian people and 63 members of parliament.

The previous leader of the Alliance Party, the member from Calgary, used to go across the country talking ad nauseam about the equality of the provinces and the equality of people being a fundamental value. He said he believed in the fundamental equality of the Canadian people.

Yet when it comes to putting its preaching into practice in the House of Commons, the Alliance comes up with a private member's bill that does not treat the people equally. If people vote for the Bloc, the NDP or the Conservatives, they will not be treated the same as those who vote for the Liberals or the Alliance.

How could we justify that? I have been challenging Alliance members to explain why they would breach their all important promise of equality for the people, but they are afraid to rise in the House to defend this private member's bill.

The people of Canada should realize what they said, that no party in the House should be recognized as official unless it has at least 10% of the seats. That would mean 31 seats for the NDP instead of 13, or 31 for the Conservatives instead of 12. They also said that the party should have members from three provinces. That would exclude the Bloc Quebecois, unless the Bloc elects somebody in Vancouver, Calgary and Yukon or somewhere else.

The Alliance Party is supposed to be a populist, grassroots party of the people where everyone is equal. That is the kind of party and vision its members said they had. That is one reason people are turned off by politics. They have another political party which, more than others, is old style and old fashioned. It practises old politics where it says one thing in the campaign and once elected does exactly the opposite. That is why people are cynical about the process. I want somebody from the Alliance Party to respond to my question.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon. I have listened to the debate throughout and was intrigued by the comments of the government House leader indicating that they were relatively minor amendments. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has dealt with the suggestion of 12 candidates in order for a party to be considered official.

I was more intrigued by the commitment of the House leader that he would be open to much more significant changes to the Canada Elections Act following Jean-Pierre Kingsley's report to the appropriate parliamentary committee having an opportunity to discuss his findings regarding the recent election.

All members of the House of Commons would want to pay close attention to that report and to what Mr. Kingsley, the chief electoral officer, and Elections Canada find as a result of the November 2000 election.

I should like to associate myself with some of the remarks made by the member for Edmonton North. It was a difficult election campaign with the permanent voters list that has now come into play.

While the member for Edmonton North referred to brand new subdivisions that were springing up overnight and to the difficulty of keeping up in her riding, the situation experienced in the riding of Palliser was quite a bit different. We found that low income people and people who moved a lot, probably because they are low income people and students, were being discriminated against as a result of the national registration of voters.

We used to have an enumeration prior to each election campaign. That system worked very well over many years, but it was changed. The last enumeration took place on the eve of the 1997 election and then in the November 2000 election we were into an update.

It was argued at the time that it would be much more effective to use computers, et cetera, so that people could be tracked. We are finding that a lot of the information is not available or not able to be placed into an updated voters list because of our privacy laws. This is why Mr. Kingsley's comments will be so important when they are made. I will give the House an example.

As I was door knocking in my riding I noticed Elections Canada flyers on certain doorsteps advising that one or more of the residents in the household had reached the age of 18 and was therefore eligible to cast a ballot if he or she would fill out a form.

It seems passing strange to me that those names are not placed automatically on the ballot, but apparently our privacy laws prohibit that. If the privacy laws are that strict, and there are good arguments not to change them, we really need to consider seriously going back to a system of enumeration.

As my colleague pointed out, one million people were left off the voters list in the last election. We had one of the lowest turnouts in history. In my riding of Palliser the vote was just over 62%. I make the point again that it was primarily low income people and people who tend to move around a lot.

One can get on the voters list. It is easier to get on the voters list on election day than it used to be, but one still requires identification or must be sworn in by a friend. A lot of times genuine low income people do not have an abundance of personal ID. It is difficult for them to find someone to go with them, hold their hand at the polling booth and say this is Jane Smith or whomever. I think we must look at the whole area, and I am pleased the government House leader has made a commitment on that.

At the same time I want to be critical of Mr. Kingsley for suggesting the answer to low voter turnout was compulsory voting. A lot of our problems have to do with the transition to the permanent voters list from the enumerated list. We need to tidy that up and make it more effective. If we cannot tidy it up we should revert to the enumeration system.

The member for Edmonton North also noted the situation in Saskatchewan, which has not had a political tax credit at the provincial level, and the need to remedy it. I suspect she knows a bill has already been passed but not yet proclaimed in that legislature. I have been given assurances the problem will be remedied in Saskatchewan's new session of parliament which probably begins in a month or so. Then there will be political tax credits in all 10 provinces. We have had a federal tax credit in Canada since the mid-1970s. We look forward to that progressive change in Saskatchewan's legislation.

Another item which deserves to be raised and to which my colleague alluded was the question of third party advertising. I too very much support strict limits on third party advertising during election campaigns. The political parties that participate in campaigns have very rigid spending limits that must be followed. It would be patently unfair for people with deep pockets to be able to subvert or buy their way into the media to effect changes that the political parties do not have the budget to do.

We recognize, and I think the government recognizes, through the legislation it has endeavoured to bring in over the last number of years, that third parties should be able to advertise during election campaigns. However they should spend only a finite amount of money on advertising, less than what political parties are able to spend, because an election campaign is a contest between all the parties, big and small, and not the folks with the big bank accounts.

We align ourselves in the New Democratic Party very much with finite limits on third party advertising, unlike the lead spokesperson in the debate for the Canadian Alliance Party.

To conclude, I would encourage colleagues who are interested to look at a document entitled The National Register of Electors , which raises questions about the new approach to voter registration in Canada. It would take only about 10 or 15 minutes to read through the booklet. It was written before the results were tallied, so it says in effect that the November 27 election serves as the litmus test for the national registration of voters.

It wonders whether the move to a permanent voters list from the enumeration system was done as a cost saving venture. I hope that when Mr. Kingsley and the parliamentary committee studying the legislation looks at this fundamental change to the act, tough questions like that will be asked by the parliamentarians who serve on the committee.

I see my time is drawing to a close. I will conclude by saying that we in my party are supportive of the minor technical amendments in the bill. Far more importantly, however, we are interested in the fundamental changes that the government House leader alluded to when he led off the debate this afternoon.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate and to note that this is an important piece of legislation. It is, in essence, the rules of engagement that apply to those who seek public office.

Although the bill has some rather particular aspects to it that are addressed in the overall scheme of things, I think it is timely, given that we have recently resumed this session of parliament and come through an election, that we look at how elections are conducted.

The bill, as has been noted, would amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. It is a bill that, as I indicated, deals substantially with two aspects that came out of a court case in the province of Ontario.

I begin my remarks by saying that it is good to see. I say with some sarcasm that the government has not changed the way it deals with legislation such as this in parliament. It is good to see that it has remained consistent and predictable. The government has treated this legislation, like many other pieces of legislation of this type, by not consulting. That is to say that it did not go to the effort of prior consultation with political parties in order to gain consensus, which was always the practice when it came to bills of this nature. It is disappointing and yet, as I indicated, it has become somewhat an expected attitude and approach on the part of the government.

The current Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands, served with great distinction on a special committee on electoral reform between 1991 and 1993 when he was a member of the opposition. A committee that was chaired by Mr. Jim Hawkes, the Progressive Conservative member from Calgary at that time, studied many of the same issues that we see before us.

That committee, in coming to its conclusions, stated quite emphatically that it would not report to the Chamber unless the recommendations were endorsed by all three political parties in existence at that time. There was an effort to recognize that consensus on issues such as this are extremely important. My, how times have changed.

However, in regard to this particular piece of legislation, the electoral act, changes have come before the Chamber since 1994 time and again without prior agreement, without consensus as to the content. That very much puts the government and this legislation, sadly, on shaky ground in terms of its legitimacy.

The last legislation of this type that came before parliament, Bill C-2 as it then was, was subjected to time allocation, which is of course again a practice that we have seen far too often in the past number of years. In fact, the trigger-happy government House leader has now used time allocation 69 times. Again, my, how times change. When the government House leader was a member of the opposition, it was so offensive to him and such an affront to democracy, yet a different attitude now prevails.

Turning back to the bill itself, I must admit that the changes now before us are reasonable in their content. They are changes that result from a court case that came out of the Ontario court of appeal. It bears noting that these changes will, I believe, enhance the current legislation, although I was hoping that in this parliament the first encounter we would have on a bill such as this, the first opportunity we would have to address this issue, would be met with perhaps a different attitude so that we would be able to deal with this problem of encountering each other in a different fashion. That does not appear to be the case.

One of the major problems, which was apparent to all Canadians and all parliamentarians, in the last election was the difficulty with the permanent voters list. We have heard a litany of stories of constituents who found that when they went to vote, to exercise their democratic right, a very important right and one that we all encourage in this legislation, their names were absent or there was some anomaly like not being listed at the appropriate polling station.

We all have to be very diligent. I hope this legislation in its final draft will address some of the problems surrounding the application of the permanent voters list. There is a huge frustration, as one can appreciate, whether it be a member of the voting public from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough or from any constituency in the country, when individuals make that important statement of going to cast their ballot and arrive at a polling station only to find that for one reason or another their names are not listed.

I hope that when the bill goes to committee we will have an opportunity to delve into it in greater detail. That is not to say that this is not the proper forum to discuss some of the problems and some of the changes that could occur, but I hope that at that time in particular we will have an opportunity to pose questions to the chief electoral officer and his staff regarding some of these issues that arose during the last campaign.

From these problems and this experience, we might get some idea from Mr. Kingsley, the chief electoral officer, of the cost of creating this permanent electoral list, of the attempts that will of course follow to keep it up to date, and of the safeguards that ensure it is accurate, for this in and of itself has to be the fundamental purpose of having a permanent voters list, a list that reflects the eligible voters of the various constituencies around the country. It appears, in its current form at least, to be flawed. This is an opportunity to change that, to improve upon this permanent voters list and the efforts that were made to put this in place in the first place.

The overall amendments to the current legislation as compared to the last parliament's appear to be fairly straightforward in nature. Bill C-9 responds to the Ontario court of appeal case known as Figueroa. This case dealt with a submission on the part of the Communist Party of Canada, an argument that many of the provisions of the Canada Elections Act in its current form benefited larger political parties and therefore, by virtue of the same method, discriminated against the smaller political groupings.

With regard to the identification of candidates and political parties on the ballot, the court held that provisions of the Canada Elections Act limit identification of candidates' party affiliations on the ballot to candidates that were endorsed by organized political parties which supported 50 or more candidates in a general election.

It was found in the ruling by the majority on the court that this would infringe the charter. By virtue of its decision, the court did, as is often the case, give the Parliament of Canada an opportunity to address the issue, the anomaly, and to fix the problem.

The court felt that there was no justification, as it wrote in the ruling, for bringing the 50 candidates limit in relation to this matter or for having that in place. It discriminated against smaller political groups and was thus, in the court's opinion, not justifiable under the charter. It did not meet what has become known as the Oakes test.

This was a common sense judgment in my view, and the way in which it has been handled is the way that it should have been handled, that is, it is now back in the place where legislation is to be drafted and produced. It is back in our hands for us to do just that job.

The court put in place a time period to rewrite the applicable portion of that legislation. It set no particular guidelines in its findings with respect to the 50 candidates rule. It did not say it was too high but it did not set a bottom number either, so the current legislation produces the number of 15, which may be arbitrary. That is again something that will be examined by the committee. It is interesting to note that the number of 15 is that which was recommended by a royal commission on electoral reforms that was established after the 1988 general election.

The bill before us does in fact recommend that political parties can have their names printed under the name of the supported candidate if the nomination of 12 candidates of that party is confirmed by the chief electoral officer at the close of nominations.

At the committee I or a representative of the Progressive Conservative Party will look forward with great interest to listening to the reasons for picking this number and why it is that the government feels it is the particular number that would be defensible and charter proof in any future challenges. That is something we have to bear in mind when we put this final number in place.

I want to make a brief passing reference to the issue of Bill C-273, which was in my view quite meanspirited and a bit inflammatory in its reference to fringe parties in this Chamber. I think it is disrespectful and trivializing to introduce legislation of this sort and is purely political posturing. However, that said, I think the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, with some humility, might consider withdrawing this particular bill because of its inflammatory nature, and I think that good faith on his part might be forthcoming.

I do look forward to dealing with this particular bill when it gets to the committee and looking at the possibility of fine tuning some of the amendments.

Some of the other particular amendments that come out of this legislation deal with the advertising blackout period, which is important because of the vastness of the country, because of the time change that occurs not only on election night but in the periods before the campaign. This is also an important consideration.

There is the adjustment of expense limits for candidates should there be differences in the total number of voters between the preliminary electoral list and the revised list.

These are important rules of engagement to be governed by the legislation.

In any event, the committee will have an opportunity to look at these matters in greater detail. The committee will have an opportunity to hear from the chief electoral officer. In fact, I am sure the government House leader, who has carriage of this bill, will be an able and apt participant in those discussions.

I see that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is present too, and I am very hopeful that the indication that the government is very forthcoming and forthright about electoral reform also applies to parliamentary reform. I want to refer briefly to an occasion where there was an opportunity to bring about some political reform too. That was to have—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. When this matter is taken up before the House at the next opportunity, he will have approximately eight minutes remaining in his intervention.

It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Automotive Pollution Reduction Act

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

moved that Bill C-254, an act to protect human health and the environment by oxygenating automotive fuels and eliminating the gasoline additive MMT, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce at second reading Bill C-254, which is an act to protect human health and the environment by oxygenating automobile fuels and eliminating the additive MMT.

I am sad to say that due to the constrictions of our system this so-called debate will end today in one hour and this bill has not been declared votable, which I am very sad about, considering that just yesterday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the highest authority regarding climate change, stated that in this century there might be a climate change rise, that the seas might rise between one and even eight metres. Here we are in the House not being able to debate important issues such as transportation fuel, which accounts for 25% of greenhouse gases.

In fact, the objective of my bill is two-fold: first of all to oxygenate gasoline or diesel fuel by at least 2.7% in weight, which is roughly equivalent to 8% oxygenation by volume, and second, to phase out the additive MMT, which would then not be required, by July 2005, to give time for this to happen.

The principle behind oxygenation of gasoline or diesel fuel is very simple. The more oxygen you put in fuel, whether it is gasoline or diesel fuel, the less toxicity there is. I have a chart drawn by one of the foremost experts in fuel which shows there are several problems with gasoline or diesel fuel: carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide. In addition, because we use unleaded gasoline and we are trying to phase out benzene, we have to further refine gasoline to the nth degree to permit these things to happen.

What we are trying to do instead of using piecemeal solutions to nitrous oxide or carbon monoxide or other problems with fuels is to use one holistic approach, because what we can do by oxygenating fuels is to use ethanol, which is a pure, natural substance. The more we refine gasoline or diesel, the more CO2 and toxic carcinogens take place.

Ethanol has the highest octane, the highest oxygen and the highest CO2 fighting properties of any alternative fuel available today. In addition to it being a natural fuel, it can be produced out of coal or biomass such as buffalo grass or trees. It can be produced out of sugar cane and it can even be produced out of solid waste from municipal dumps.

Being a natural substance, it produces a lot of oxygen. If we could use 100% ethanol in our automobiles it would be equal to 35% of oxygen within the fuel.

We are so far behind the United States, it is not funny. The United States started to talk about oxygenation of gasoline way back when in 1990, when it amended the U.S. clean air act to force oxygenation of gasoline in wintertime in certain targeted large cities which had a particular pollution problem.

Last year 28 states of the United States were legislating on oxygenation. This year it might be all the 50 states. My bill used the state of Minnesota as a model which legislated oxygenation four years ago. It now has 10 ethanol producing plants which produced 869 million litres of ethanol, three times what we are producing in the all of Canada.

In the Chicago area oxygenated gas or oxy-fuel is the only gasoline or diesel fuel one can buy. It produces 2.25 billion litres of ethanol. Here we are still in the dark ages because we do not want to debate the issue. We do not want to legislate it. We go by piecemeal solutions without legislation to back it up.

I wish to give an example of what is done in the United States. By the spring of 2001 there will be 1.2 million vehicles fuelled by what is known as E85, which is 85% ethanol. In Canada, we have 25 vehicles that are run by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Our buses run on 10% ethanol but our cars do not.

Why can we not legislate it? Why can we not be like the United States? Why can we not be like Sweden where ethanol is available from north to south and where the Scania buses run on 100% ethanol which is 35% oxygenated fuel?

We do not even want to discuss it here. My bill is non-votable because as private members we are not supposed to have smart ideas. We are not supposed to know. Meanwhile, 28 states of the United States debated legislation last year and perhaps up to 50 states will debate it this year.

Why should we also ban MMT? I know we have had debates on this subject where the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc Quebecois fought hard for the Ethyl Corporation. I ask for one good reason why we in Canada should be the silly guinea pigs, the only industrial nation on earth using MMT.

It is not used in Sweden, Norway, Finland, England or Germany. It is not even used in the United States, the home of the Ethyl Corporation, because it is manganese, a chemical that has toxifying properties.

Scientists not only in the United States but in Europe and elsewhere, and certainly the two leading scientists on manganese in Canada, Dr. Mergler at the University of Quebec in Montreal and Dr. Zayed at the University of Montreal, have shown in their studies a connection between manganese and motor impairment in human beings.

I know the studies are not conclusive. I know our health ministry is conducting another multi-year study. Surely we as a country should sign the real precautionary principle which says that if there is a threat perceived to human health and the environment then let us not use the substance.

My bill was designed to oxygenate gasoline and to phase out MMT by 2005 because it is not needed and it is a toxic agent. Unfortunately my bill will die in one hour at the date when we are supposed to be fighting climate change.

I must say in presenting this bill that I am at the same time saddened. I hope we will use these opportunities to reform our system, to give private members a chance to debate ideas whether they are right or they are wrong in front of all their peers, not in front of a little committee of five or six people that decides in secret whether it is good or it is bad.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very interesting presentation by the hon. member. As he suggested, we have been around and around this debate for many years in the House. He has not changed his mind and I have not changed my mind. Certainly the bitterness that he expresses over the length of time he gets to debate the issue, his grievance is not with the opposition, our party, but with his own government.

We came back to this place, presented proposals and advocated change to the parliamentary rules that govern this place. We presented proposals to change how this place works and how it could be more democratic so that members like himself could have more say in what goes on around here and have a better chance to debate ideas from the backbenches.

However, at the same time, I do not see the hon. member, who did the complaining a minute ago, standing and voting against his government to help that process change. It is disappointing that did not happen.

Aside from that, I will now go to the bill at hand. I have a problem with a couple of issues in the bill, one being the MMT issue and the other being oxygenation. I essentially agree with what the member said. If we could oxygenate to the levels he suggested, the octane enhancing additive would not be necessary. However, to do that it would require an enhanced refining process, thereby adding to the cost of refining a litre of gasoline.

We have not built any refineries for many years but the demand for gasoline has increased tremendously. We are at a point where the balance between demand and supply is very tight. If the demand rises much more, or we enhance the refining process and slow down the time it takes to put a barrel of crude oil through a refinery and the production of gasoline at the other end is extended, then we will have domestic shortages in supply of gasoline. That has to be a concern. The idea sounds viable and has merit but we have to look at the supply and demand side of the situation too.

On the whole issue of MMT, the member opposite and I have argued on this many times before. I do not necessarily disagree with his point of view that it would be a good thing to remove the additive MMT from gasoline because of the potential harm that manganese could do to human beings. I have a far greater concern with his position than to argue the merits of manganese in gasoline.

The point I argued when we had this debate before was that Health Canada researched the issue and reported back that the amounts of MMT or manganese that is added to gasoline to enhance octane has no harmful effect on human health. Yet he and other members of his caucus have argued that it is deadly dangerous stuff, that it is killing people or has the potential to kill people and that we should ban it.

We should ban it, of course, on the precautionary principle, but Health Canada said that it looked at it from the precautionary principle and that it rejected banning it simply because it could not see that it was harmful to human health.

If members of the government are saying that Health Canada is not protecting the health of Canadians, that it is not ruling wisely and using precautionary measures to ban this substance, as the members seem to be intimating, then I think we are in really big trouble. If Health Canada is not protecting the health of Canadians on this issue, how many other issues is it not protecting the health of Canadians on?

Let us not stand here and rave about the evils of MMT. Let us fix the system so that Health Canada will be able to do the job that everyone hopes it is doing in order to protect Canadians. When it does a study and reports that a product is not harmful to our health, then members, such as the one who just spoke, can have confidence and be comfortable that in fact is the case. I have to believe it is. I cannot stand here and think that Health Canada would endanger all of us, for whatever reason, from incompetence or influence by Ethyl Corporation or any of the other things that have been suggested.

The issue is much bigger than what the member suggests. He is a member of the government that has been in power now for some seven years. He had better work on his government to fix the problems, not only with how private members' bills are debated, but on how government agencies like Health Canada work to protect Canadians. Those are such important issues that he needs to argue with his ministries and his government, not with the opposition.

On the issue of ethanol, he indicated how other parts of the world, particularly the United States, were so far ahead of us in the use and production of ethanol. I do not argue that ethanol is a much cleaner burning fuel. It would be a good idea if we had more ethanol, but Canadians have to know that without an 8 cent excise subsidy on ethanol production it is not economical in Canada. Without the 8 cent subsidy, we simply would not have that industry.

I have real concerns because the Minister of Natural Resources suggested in the House today that the government's position is to greatly increase the production of ethanol and to enjoy all the benefits that come with it. Creating an industry that cannot exist without that level of subsidization is not good economic policy. Somewhere the house of cards will come crashing down and we will pay the price. Whether it is the government through the use of taxpayer dollars that pays the price or whether it is the consuming public at the pump, somebody has to pay the price and will do so.

In spite of all the rhetoric around climate change, the horror stories about what might or might not happen because of climate change around the world, Canadians generally have not shown a real willingness to pay the price.

A few moments ago I came from a briefing with the Conference Board of Canada where the government commissioned a study on the price of gasoline. There were some members of the government at the briefing. I have heard them a number of times raging about the rip-off in the gasoline market and in gasoline prices. There was huge outrage last summer when gasoline prices in parts of Canada were spiking at 90 cents a litre.

If the member is suggesting that Canadians are willing to pay the price, be it 8 cents a litre for more ethanol or be it for more intensive refining to reduce tailpipe emissions, the government has a big job ahead of it to convince Canadians that it needs to be done and they should be willing to do it.

As I listened in my riding and elsewhere all across the country, Canadians were outraged and members of the House seemed to be outraged at the level of gasoline prices last summer. If we do the things the member wants to do then we had better get used to those gasoline prices. We will again see even higher gasoline prices this summer than we saw last summer. Some would suggest that gas will spike at $1.28 a litre when we hit the peak driving season this summer in some parts of Canada. Again we will hear that outcry from one side of the country to the other.

If we are really serious and if we think we should do what the member suggests then we have a big selling job. I do not have a big selling job. His party is the government. It has a big selling job to do in Canada. The government better get started on it right away if it is going to win that argument.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise today and talk about this issue. I was a car dealer for 18 years prior to the career I have now. I was very involved when the very first pollution devices came in. The environment became a subject that we talked about every day from the factory level to the dealer level.

This whole debate brings forth a lot of questions which have been raised by several members of the House. We raised questions about the process of how private members' bills work and how effective they are and could be. Questions have been raised about the confidence that people have in Health Canada. We had the actual issue raised by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis about helping the environment by removing MMT from gasoline and increasing the oxygenation.

I would like to compliment the hon. member for bringing this forth. It takes a great deal of effort, stamina, confidence and research to produce a bill like this and to see it through the procedure, which can be very discouraging. However, the hon. member has followed through and has shown his usual diligence and ability to overcome.

We are talking about this today, although not in the way he would like. He would like it to be a votable issue. He would like it to go to committee. That is what should have happened.

There are so many questions on so many aspects of this that we really have not had the chance to scrutinize the issue. We have not had a chance to do the homework on it. We have not had the examination on it or heard from witnesses. Now we never will because it was determined that it would not go to a vote. We lost that opportunity which would have helped a lot of us understand the issue better than we do, or at least better than I understand it now. We have missed an opportunity and I think it is a shame.

The member has certainly raised the bar on standards for environment and health. By bringing this forth he has shown initiative and courage. It is interesting that his government has not had an environmental piece of legislation of any consequence for the eight years it has been here. Yet the member brought forth this bill. We should move a motion to make him the minister, then I am sure we would have some really interesting environmental bills.

In any case, if MMT is poisonous or if it is a hazard to our health and the environment, it can do a great deal of damage. An incredible volume of gasoline, diesel and other fuels now use MMT. I honestly do not know whether MMT is a dangerous substance or not. I probably will not know now that we will not have a chance to take this to committee and hear from witness who do know and who are experts in the field. However, if it is as dangerous as he fears it is, then I we should be taking steps to do what he wants to do, which is to have research provided from other sources than Health Canada.

I agree with Health Canada and have a great deal of respect for it as well. However, there are still a lot of other bodies that question the potential damage that MMT can do. Health Canada is a respectable outfit but there are other respectable outfits that are just as respectable. They also say that MMT poses a serious health and environmental hazard.

We think it deserves more research, more debate in the House and more from experts. I hope the hon. member does not give up with the way the bill has gone through in a non-votable fashion. I hope he will keep on pressing the issue. I hope he will keep bringing it forth at committee or at every opportunity he has.

We agree with the concept and with the principle. However, I do not have the information to work with and I do not feel comfortable with the information that is available. It is kind of like the national missile defence system. The government said it would make a decision when it had the information. For me, I do not have the information at the level with which I feel comfortable. I probably will not get it now because it will not go to committee and we will not have the opportunity to get that information.

However, I do want to commend the hon. member for bringing it forth and for his diligence and determination.