André Harvey

[Division No. 39, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Conservative Party vote yes on this motion.

[Canada Elections Act, October 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, modernizing the Canada Elections Act is of the utmost importance to update a tool that is indispensable to the framing of our democracy.

I think it is not going too far to say that, after 30 years, we must carefully look at every detail of this issue. It is a start. Members of the House of Commons have done some preliminary work that is very important. But this bill is far from being perfect.

In this exercise, it is essential to keep in mind that the work that has started and will continue over the next few weeks and the next few months will serve Canadian democracy and also each Canadian who must assume his or her responsibility to vote at specific intervals.

It is important to consider certain elements which, to us, seem indispensable. This is a very laborious exercise. We are addressing issues on which it may be difficult to reach a consensus. The numerous clauses and hundreds of pages setting out the proposals to be submitted to the House at a later time force us to recognize that it is almost a monk's job that will be asked of parliamentarians.

It will be hard to agree on everything. Regarding the financing of political parties, for example, policy issues will arise that will need to be discussed. And these will be difficult issues.

There is, for example, the issue of popular financing, which was introduced in Quebec. In spite of the fact that the act marked a huge improvement in the exercise of democratic rights, it is not perfect either. Under the provincial act, a business or its members may still contribute to the financing of political parties.

For example, in a law firm, only personal contributions are allowed. However, the firm itself could very well ask its members to contribute to a political party with the promise of being reimburse by the firm. A direct link between financing and democracy is not as easy as it may seem to make. These are nuances that will be important to address in debate or in committee.

The selection of returning officers is also an issue that will have to be addressed. We need to put in place a system where returning officers at least appear to be beyond too direct political influence. In debate, it will be very interesting to hear suggestions from all political parties and all Canadians on how to improve this procedure.

It will also be important to consider issues such as the voting age. It is becoming almost unavoidable to change the legal voting age given that, as one of my colleagues noted, young people are increasingly well-informed, and from an earlier age, about the problems and challenges they will have to face during their life.

It will be important to consider changes in that respect. Letting younger people take part in a democratic process, in an election, would probably force the vast majority of Canadians to be more attuned to the priorities that are of particular concern to young people. Some of our debates, which have been going on for over 15, 25 or 30 years, will have to be set aside, so that we can deal with issues that concern young people.

In that context, we have to be open to the idea of lowering the voting age. To allow young people to vote at age sixteen might be appropriate. At that age, and even before, young people are increasingly aware of the issues confronting them. Such a change might bring some fresh air to the Canadian democracy.

Let us not forget that these amendments to the Canada Elections Act concern all Canadian voters. That is why we may have to try to go as far as we can in seeking a consensus, so as to achieve near-unanimity in the House of Commons regarding this legislation.

There will obviously be policy issues involved. Each party has been adhering to certain principles for many years, even decades. In undertaking a review of such an important act, we should perhaps set aside the principles that have guided our actions in the past and be more forward-looking instead. This is important in order to give all Canadians an act that will reflect a great deal of openness regarding several issues, including financing.

Financing has always been a very divisive issue in Canada, where we have the strict public financing process as we know it in Quebec and the traditional financing system used elsewhere in the country. I think it is possible to reconcile the two and come to agree on financing methods that are acceptable to all Canadians, without contravening the principles of democracy.

We raised the issues of polls, electronic information, Internet, etc., and we will raise them again.

It is important to limit such action rationally, because it is possible—democracy is important, we must protect it—to put it to demagogic use even. Therefore, activity involving election polls and electronic information that will be distributed increasingly, both publicly and within our families, must be given a framework.

I believe that the fact of having to publish the full rationality behind polls conducted will prevent, obviously, in the context of a regular election campaign, the publication of certain polls intended strictly to serve partisan purposes and to manipulate the very democratic action people are called on to take from time to time, namely vote in all good conscience. This is an important point that must be addressed.

The fact that the number of hours in which the publication of polls both rational and less rational will be controlled is surely good news and will enable all Canadians to cast their vote in an objective and rational way that will benefit the country as a whole. I believe that our role as politicians is to do everything necessary to promote transparent democracy.

Among the various parties, everything must be done, in the context of the revision of election legislation, so that the periodic act of voting by the public may be governed by objective and non partisan rules. I am sure that all the time spent revising the Canadian election legislation will be beneficial for decades to come.

I thank the House for having given me a few minutes to express my thoughts.

[Health, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The cuts in health care have created totally unacceptable problems.

Could the minister tell us whether the fact that people are obliged to wait two, four, six and eight weeks for operations is in accordance with Canada Health Act?

[Business Of The House, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative members vote no on this motion.

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments made by the hon. member on a sector that has been overlooked, but I would like to get her opinion on one specific issue.

We are faced with a rather pathetic if not immoral situation in Canada. On the one hand, the federal government is getting richer thanks to free trade and the GST—which brings in $20 billion—and tax surcharges that bring in an additional $20 billion. On the other hand, the provinces are getting poorer and cannot meet the urgent needs of their citizens in the areas of health, education and family policy. There are also individuals who are getting poorer because of the very heavy tax burden. Let us not forget that in the United States the maximum tax rate of 40% is imposed on an income of $264,000, while in Canada a rate in excess of 50% is applied on an income of $60,000.

How does the hon. member explain the fact that the federal government, whose role should be to support the activities of the provinces—considering that it cut $33 billion over a six year period in the Canada social transfer—persists in creating new programs in the areas of family, education and health, at a time when Canadians have to travel to the United States to get medical treatment? I would like to know the hon. member's view on this situation.

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us here want the federation to work, we want the sharing of powers between the provinces and the federal government to work properly.

The problem is that everyone wants to be excessively visible. The provinces, like the federal government, want to be excessively visible, with the result that there are new programs that lack clarity, both at the provincial and federal levels.

For instance, there is currently no issue more serious than health in our country. Who would have thought that, one day, Canadians would have to travel to the United States to get medical treatment? I am convinced that the Canadian government, whose role is to ensure compliance with the Canada Health Act, did not amend that act—at least I did not see anything to that effect—to provide that Canadians will have to get medical treatment in the United States.

I want to ask the minister if she thinks—after cutting $17 billion in the social transfers to the provinces for health, education and help for the poor—that the government can do its utmost to ensure that people can get medical treatment in our country. Especially in Quebec, there are very serious problems in the hospitals' emergency services and some people have no choice but to get medical treatment outside Canada. In addition to the internal problems that we are faced with because of a lack of funding, the cuts made to transfer payments have been drastic. This is true for every sector, but I am asking the minister if there is any hope for the health sector.

[Division No. 558, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party vote no to the motion, with the exception of the members for Richmond—Arthabaska, Kings—Hants, Brandon—Souris, and Shefford.

[Division No. 556, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative members present will vote no to this motion.

[Division No. 550, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative members present will vote no to this motion.

[Division No. 549, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative members present will vote no to this motion.