Debates of June 10th, 2003

Canada Elections Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

I want to caution members that if we get sidetracked on other discussions besides the question and the comments it obviously could have a negative effect on those numbers of people participating.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen over the years in this place, when the government passes this kind of self-serving legislation it often ends up before the courts. The legislation is then either struck down or it costs the public treasury millions of dollars to defend the legislation.

The Liberal Party president, Stephen LeDrew, suggested before committee that parts of the bill were unconstitutional and went against the charter.

I would ask the minister how much the government has budgeted to defend the bill against court challenges.

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

Mr. Speaker, every bill that is produced by the government, not private members' bills, but any government initiated legislation under our Constitution must be certified by the Minister of Justice, saying that to the best of his knowledge, ability and to the knowledge of all of his officials the bill is within the constitutional authority granted to the federal government to legislate. That is part of the Constitution. It was made that way in 1982 upon repatriation. I am sure the hon. member knows that. Therefore, that is the way in which all government bills are done.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest issue with the bill, as I see it, is the whole argument surrounding the accusation of the benefits of incumbency. Without question, the bill benefits the incumbent much more than anyone else.

The government could easily have addressed that issue and yet chose not to. In the original bill the first date that the bill would apply would have been January 1, 2005. That has been changed to January 1, 2004.

Obviously that means that if the bill is passed it will come into effect prior to the next election. I cannot for the life of me understand why the government, in order to get around the argument and the accusation that the bill benefits the incumbent, did not make the bill effective January 1, 2006. It would be after the next election. All the players, the dynamics and the percentages are unknown at this point in time. Why did that not happen?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has only recently taken on the position in his caucus, but I regret to inform him that the bill never said January 1, 2005. That is not correct. The hon. member can go to the first printing of the bill and he will see that was never there. What it did say was January 1, 2004 or six months after proclamation, whichever came later.

As I said in my testimony before committee, the reason we changed it was, for example, if the bill were approved on July 15, that would make it come into effect next January 15. We would have had some contributions at the old rate of return, those who made a donation, and some contributions at the new rate of return. Because our taxation year for individuals is based on January 1 to December 31, it would have been impossible to detect which contributions were made at which time of the year.

In terms of the business of benefiting incumbency, it is actually the opposite of the reality. I know the hon. member was not here, but he may remember after 1993, when his political party virtually disappeared from the map. If a relatively large number of Canadians had continued to vote for that party, this would have ensured stability in the funding of his party even though its parliamentary representation had fallen to a small amount. Therefore, because that party had such support from the voters, it would have reflected itself. It did not benefit incumbency at that time. It would have benefited parties that had lost all their status.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, further to that, it is self-serving for a government to change the rules that will affect the existing party in power to the extent this bill does.

If the government were not self-serving, not thinking of how it could benefit or how it could pay off its debt and fill its coffers with this money, why did it not pick a date that would have been after the next election? It could have picked a date that would tie into the taxation year after the next election without causing any difficulty.

Why has the government bring in legislation that is self-serving to the government in power? Why did it not pick a date that would not be quite so self-serving, and go to the electorate with this?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is telling us to go to the electorate with this. I do not know if that is a challenge her and her leader are making. Do we want to fight an election on this issue? Her leader can decide.

I remind her and others that the last time a leader of the Alliance or Reform Party decided to tell the Prime Minister to call an election, the guy lost his job and is now sitting over in the far corner, having been defeated by someone else as leader of his own party and having been trounced at the polls.

With regard to the issue that the hon. member raised in terms of why we would not delay the implementation, it is interesting that she would say that because a number of her own colleagues actually asked me to make the legislation retroactive. Insofar as the leadership campaigns were concerned, they wanted us to go back and apply it to a campaign that was already underway. This is the same as asking for rules on an election campaign which already had started. Some of her colleagues asked for us to push it back, in terms of that part of the implementation, and she has asked us to push it further ahead in another part of the bill. That is not very serious.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP's position was that there be no contributions allowed whatsoever from the corporate or labour union sector of our society. If we will not do that, and the government has rejected that, then we need to have a level playing field. The opening the government has left with regard to franchises does not provide a level playing field for the labour movement if it wants to contribute. The government was given the option.

Why did the government reject this? Why did it not take the definition of labour unions if it was stuck on letting the franchises make their contributions? There is an issue here about the directing mind. Anybody who has practised law and has looked at franchise agreements knows where that directing mind comes from, and it is no different there than it would be within the labour movement. There is as much independence in labour movement locals as there is in franchises, or as little, depending on how one looks at it.

Why did the minister reject the position the NDP took, that if the government was to go this route, why not use the definition of what a trade union was as contained in the Canada Labour Code?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. With respect, the hon. member has a misunderstanding about how private enterprises, small businesses, work. Nobody is going to tell me that the little hardware store in my village is somehow directed by the people who sell it lawnmowers and who are based in Kitchener, Ontario or wherever. That is ridiculous.

For him to pretend that small businesses in his riding are subservient that way, I do not know what he will do the next time there is a dinner of the chamber of commerce, or if a representative from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business visits the hon. member. That is not an accurate representation of the reality.

I have met with the national labour unions over the issue of this bill. I had a meeting in my office here. My staff and the experts who drafted the bill had further meetings with them. We have totally discussed this issue. For the hon. member to say that small independent businesses in the country are somehow the equivalent of either branches of a bank, vis-à-vis head office, or branches of a labour union being a local, is not accurate as a representation, and I do not think anybody seriously believes that is the same.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it astounding, this potentially being the last week of Parliament that we may be sitting, we are dealing with a bill that strictly is going to benefit the government in power, especially in light of this fact. Maybe the Liberals have not even noticed, because they are sitting here on their high horses, that Canadians have been facing crisis after crisis in recent months.

Across the country we have had the closure of the east coast cod fishery, SARS in the Toronto and Ontario area, mad cow in western Canada and the softwood lumber problem, which has been ongoing for years because of this lack of management on the other side. Yet the Prime Minister has avoided, evaded and outright ignored many of these concerns and these problems across the country. Instead his only priority is Bill C-24, which he is trying to push it through the House. It seems the only reason is to improve his own legacy and image.

Could the minister explain to Canadians why the attempts to clean up the Prime Minister's image have taken precedence over their health and livelihood?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know who writes this stuff, but he or she would be fired right now if I were in the place of the hon. member.

The hon. member should know the legislative program of the government. We have dealt with everything from international agreements, aboriginal self-government in Bill C-7 and the budget implementation bill that transfers the funding to the provinces for the health accord to improve health in every way, and about which the hon. member has just talked.

What party voted against Bill C-28, the budget implementation and health transfers to the provinces to help in health? Hon. members across, who are asking me these preposterous questions, are the same people who voted against giving extra money to the provinces for health and all kinds of other things. They voted against the tax reduction measures and all those other things on which the government had been working so hard.

In terms of the Prime Minister's image, and I want to end on that note, the Prime Minister is at an historical high in his personal popularity. He has led Canadians in an absolutely magnificent way for all these years. In a year from now, or close to that, he will no longer be the Prime Minister, unfortunately in my view, but he will be remembered as being one of the great leaders the country has ever had.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is time for a brief question. The hon. member for Leeds--Grenville.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I approve of this bill. It is a step in the right direction, and I want to emphasize that it is a step. I want to dispel a bit the myth that somehow the backbench of this party was pushing for the bill to be less than it was. In fact I was pushing very hard for us go further.

I would just like to say to the minister that in commenting on how and when over the next few years the bill might be reviewed, I would point out a couple of things that I think need attention. One, I think the--

[The Deputy Speaker]

If anyone is going to do any pointing and getting people's attention right now, I hope I can get the House's attention. Please direct the question to the minister. Time has run out on the clock, but I do want to allow a few seconds for a response.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the $1,000 going to zero, because I think it is just overly complicated, and the regulation of leadership expenses in addition to nomination expenses, is there a process that this could perhaps be looked at in the years to come?

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

Mr. Speaker, on all issues there will be the statutory review of the bill, which was already the case, and now there is an additional threshold that not only must the Elections Act be reviewed after every election, but now there would have to be a review that takes into account the financial implications involved in the bill in that the additional threshold.

I conclude by thanking all members on all sides of the House for all of the good advice they provided to my officials and I, which assisted me in producing, I suppose, as many as 50 amendments to improve the bill to make it even better legislation for all Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Let me also thank members and the minister who participated in this question period for their cooperation which allowed for a good number of members to participate.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)