Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act.
The very nature of Canada as a free and democratic country should be accurately reflected in a bill such as this. Unfortunately the government has failed miserably in this task. Rather than a non-partisan bill that will ensure that elections take place on a fair and equitable basis, the government has put forward a bill that creates further disparity and partisanship.
We live in a time when information and technology are moving forward at an incredible pace. As incredible advances take place, the world around us struggles to keep pace. I do not believe this bill fully attempts to keep pace with the communication expectations of Canadians.
I stress communication because that is what politics and indeed the House of Commons should be all about. The process should be a circular one where the electorate chooses their representatives to send a message to Ottawa. That message may be one that endorses past actions and legislation, or it may be one that calls for incredibly drastic change. Over the past number of elections we have seen both of these messages sent to Ottawa.
The next part of the communication network is to ensure that the member adequately represents his or her constituents. Is the member able to communicate the needs of the constituency clearly and concisely to the House of Commons and enact the solutions and legislation that are necessary?
Unfortunately our current system of governance seldom takes opposition members' points of view into account. This is true both here in the House and in our committee work. It is frustrating both to the members here and the electorate that voted for those members to see their good ideas thwarted because of partisan politics.
We have seen this in many instances of late. We have seen the government stall and hand-pick witnesses. We have watched as the government forced time allocation in one form or another over 60 times. Time allocation is only a means to stop opposition members from having a legitimate opportunity to express the concerns and the needs of their constituents. The government has grievously abused this procedure and should hang its head in shame.
Contrary to the thoughts of many, democracy does not rule here in the House. The government whip rules over that side of the House. Even with the slim majority number of seats representing only 38% of the people in Canada who voted, the elite few in and around the Prime Minister's office rule the country.
Note that I said rule and not run, for I believe that the Liberals rule in an autocratic manner. I know there are members on that side of the House who have disagreed with what the Prime Minister has said. I know that there are those who do not wish to vote in the government prescribed way. I have watched as these same members felt that they could not vote against the party line and thus were not able to adequately express their constituents' feelings on a given topic.
The close of the communication loop is for the government, after truly listening to the electorate, to be able to adequately pass new or revised legislation and communicate this back to constituents. All too often, especially with this government, it makes the claim that it is listening to the people only to turn around and do something exactly opposite to the will of the people.
I need only cite the recent deplorable manner in which the justice minister refused to listen to the people of Canada on their feelings about child pornography. Hundreds of thousands of people have signed petitions calling for the use of the notwithstanding clause thus negating the unnecessary cost and waste of time that has dragged on for over a full year. Canadians will not stand for that kind of abuse and the subsequent exploitation of our children while we stand around and do nothing.
For over a full year the justice minister stated that child pornography would not need to have the notwithstanding clause used, while those of us from British Columbia are still waiting for real action to take place. Right now and for over the past year the possession of child pornography has been legal in B.C. That is right, legal.
This is the ostrich method approach. And what is that? Government members stick their heads in the sand and wait for the danger to pass. Well I have news for them. The danger is mounting: child pornography, HRDC boondoggles, the hepatitis C tainted blood debacle, the Nisga'a agreement, the new elections act and a host of others. These dangers will not pass away. The only thing that will pass them by is the electorate in the next election.
The voters should be given the right to recall their current member of parliament if they feel they are being inadequately represented. If enough people in their riding agree with them, then the member loses his or her seat and the electorate has an opportunity to select again. This would ensure that the electorate is not forgotten after the election is over, as the government does.
There are a whole series of other items which I believe should be addressed under this draft bill, but time will only allow me the opportunity to speak to a few of them.
Currently the returning officers are political appointees of the governor in council. This defeats the whole premise of a non-partisan election process. The Chief Electoral Officer himself stated during committee meetings that it was critical he be given the power to hire returning officers based upon merit.
The electorate of Canada should not have to be concerned with the Prime Minister tainting the election proceedings through his appointment of returning officers. If it were not such a serious issue, one would think that such a scene could only come out of some British farce on television.
It is most interesting that Canada is viewed as being a world leader when emerging third world countries are setting up their own electoral systems. Of note is that Elections Canada always recommends against a patronage system such as the Canadian method. It is indeed unfortunate that the Prime Minister is not able to take a lesson from Elections Canada.
One other item I would like to bring to the attention of the House is the selection of election day based on the whim of the Prime Minister when it is politically expedient. The premise of doling out cash and other pre-election goodies is so blatant that everyone is fully able to see exactly what is going on. When the Prime Minister's chequebook comes out, patronage appointments flow and extra HRDC grants are approved and announced by ministers who just happen to be in the neighbourhood, we all know that something is up: the election is in the air.
I question the government, why not set a date for every four years that is fair for everyone? The government enjoys a distinct advantage in knowing when the election call will come. If we believe in a system of fairness as I believe Canadians do, then we must ensure that the system is transparent. Bill C-2 would have been an excellent opportunity for the government to show Canadians that, but it has failed Canadians miserably.
I could go on and on and speak about the way the government sent the bill to committee before second reading thus keeping it out of the public spotlight. I could mention that the committee did not allow any significant amendments. We could go further and discuss the fact that the act is biased toward those parties that have seats in the House, thus limiting the governance choices available to the public.
In closing, I wish to put the government on notice that the electorate of Canada will remember Bill C-2 as one more partisan bill by the Liberal government. The electorate notes that the government will do anything in its power to retain its power. However the electorate also understands that through the retention of power by the Liberal government the electorate's choices are limited.
I indicated at the start of my speech that communication was a key part of the governance system. Unfortunately this government feels it is able to fertilize the rest of Canada with anything it sees fit and that Canada will flourish. I have news for the government. Canada is flourishing in spite of the action of this government. My heart aches when I consider what Canadians could achieve if they did not have to endure the millstone of the Liberal government around their necks.
For all those reasons, I am unable to support Bill C-2 in its current form.
