Madam Speaker, after the Constitution Act, the Canada Elections Act is, without a doubt, the cornerstone of our democracy.
The purpose of this act, which encompasses the entire electoral process, is to ensure that the rules of democracy are respected so that the House of Commons reflects, as faithfully as possible, the wishes expressed by voters.
This act has not been overhauled in over 30 years. It was time, and we might have expected Bill C-2 to opt clearly for transparency. On reading it, however, we are forced to admit that, for this government, there is many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. The transparency is still veiled; I would even go so far as to say that the veils number at least seven.
There are 577 clauses in the present bill. For the initial consideration of some 250 pages of text, before Bill C-2 is referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, 301 parliamentarians will have a total of 180 minutes: three hours of debate. This will allow a mere 6% of elected members to speak. Given that nine of 18 opportunities to speak go to the government party, that leaves nine for the four opposition parties.
Already, the decision to go with this entirely parliamentary rule might suggest that the government is not too inclined to hear what the opposition might have to say on this subject.
During the few minutes allotted to me, I would like to draw particular attention to two points that we feel are fundamental but which are striking by their very absence: democratic funding of political parties, and the method of appointing returning officers.
For over 20 years, Quebec has been able to take just pride in having had the courage to clean up party funding by allowing only individual voters to contribute to party coffers.
The contribution limit is set at $3,000 per voter. The Quebec legislation, which has been in effect for over 20 years, has been proven effective and we are sorry that Bill C-2 shows not even the hint of a desire to take a similar approach.
However, not a month goes by that events do not make us think that perhaps the influence of contributors to the government's electoral fund is directly proportional to the size of their cheque. Is it simply by chance that the Minister of Transport is on good terms with the president of Onex? The question is put; it is up to you to come up with hypotheses.
Clearly, the bill before us today will not increase the public's confidence in the political parties. The old adage “Them that has gets” has not lost its meaning entirely.
So long as corporations, both large and small, can contribute to the electoral coffers as they like, with no restriction, democracy will be at risk.
For a country that wants to be the best and prides itself on being so, the federal approach to funding in this bill is an obvious blight on democracy.
In 75 days or so, we will be in the next millennium. How can we not regret the fact that this government prefers the status quo to clearly opting for transparency? Not only is the ordinary individual's perception of elected officials not improved, but, more importantly, democracy would come out ahead with legislation that recognized the vital need to give back to voters and to them alone the responsibility for the vitality of the political parties.
The second matter I would like to draw your attention to is that of the selection of returning officers.
Far be it from me to cast any doubt whatsoever on the ability of the governor in council to make valid recommendations in this connection. Moreover, making the number of appointments of all kinds that fall under its jurisdiction must be a full time job. Yet the fact that appointments of returning officers are perceived as political appointments in itself casts some doubt on the impartiality of these appointments.
The role of returning officer is key to the entire electoral process. He is responsible for applying the legislation and for settling any conflicts. As everyone is aware, a decision can satisfy some and stir up controversy with others. Just how wise is it to maintain a controversial system of appointment rather than assigning this responsibility to a committee which would examine applications for the position submitted in a competition?
Could a candidate defeated in a previous federal election be appointed returning officer? There have already been appointments as surprising as this within the present selection process. It is not unreasonable to believe that a committee would select from among the candidates the person best fitting the requirements of ability plus impartiality. And if, by chance, a former Bloc Quebecois candidate were to become a returning officer, there is a good chance that he or she would make an excellent one.
Here again, the government had a choice of transparency, but once again it has chosen the status quo. That is a choice that we regret.
On the 18th century, Montesquieu wrote “The love of democracy is a love of equality”. Canada is a democratic country, but democracy is as fragile as fine china, and the lawmakers have a duty to protect it. Not only to protect it, but to improve it.
By maintaining the present rules for political party funding and the appointment of returning officers, Bill C-2 confirms our suspicions that the democratic discourse adopted by the government does not necessarily have as its corollary any love for equality.
We greatly regret this, and in the words of Châteaubriand, a parliamentarian himself, we are forced to acknowledge that this bill does not meet our legitimate expectations and that, “despite the efforts of democracy to raise its standards with its grand goals, its standards are lowered by its actions”.
What a pity that the democratic habits of the Liberal Party will, instead of raising the standards of Canadian democracy, remorselessly lower those standards.
