Jim Abbott

[Canada Elections Act, November 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the member because of his longstanding experience as a politician. I want to make it perfectly clear that this is not a trick question. I want some input from a person who has been involved in the political process for a long time.

One concern I have as a member from British Columbia is what the Liberals have done in terms or responding to a perception, thereby creating more of a problem than there was in the first place. In fact, there was no problem. That is with respect to the fact that in Alberta, in the mountain time zone at least, the polls will be closing at 7.30 p.m., and in the Pacific time zone they will be closing at 7 p.m.

The major concern I have is the government responded to the member for Vancouver East and some of the things that have been popular in the press about the fact that people in western Canada are concerned that the vote is all over before they even start to count their ballots, which of course is nothing but a problem of perception. In trying to resolve this problem of perception, they are now going to be closing the polls in a metropolitan Vancouver, where many people are travelling for an hour or an hour and a half from work, arriving home at 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. before getting out to vote.

This member has been a politician for an extended period of time. Would he agree with me that what is going to happen, particularly in Vancouver, is people who are working for candidates and who have the ability to telephone people to try to get them out, this is going to be a severe detriment and problem for many of the people involved in the political process? It is going to be a different situation in politics in Vancouver than it will be in Toronto or Montreal because of that time change. It is a very unfair change. I wonder if the member would care to comment on that.

[Canada Elections Act, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting things in coming to this House is taking a look at the amount of discussion there is over issues that on the surface would appear to be rather arcane, even bordering on meaningless. Certainly those who may be watching this on TV would ask why members are going on and on about the elections act and all of its details.

In fact this bill is possibly one of the most important bills that the House will consider. After all, we live in a democracy. The democratic process is one in which the people of any country have the opportunity to choose those who are going to be representing them, their views and their wishes, in a Chamber such as this where the laws the land will be enacted and some will be repealed. This place should reflect the values of Canada. That is what this Chamber is all about.

If we do not take great care and if we do not have great precision in the way we construct the way in which members of this Chamber will be elected to represent the people of Canada, then we end up with things out of balance. We then end up with things in our society that simply cannot be changed because there is a higher power than this Chamber. And indeed there should never be.

In parenthesis I think of the situation in Belarus at this moment, where it is my understanding that the president of that country who was elected two years ago, has been requesting, demanding in fact, and is holding a referendum on whether he should be given more and more autocratic power which of course is the exact opposite of what a democracy is all about.

We took time, care and precision on coming to this bill. I have been encouraged by the reports I have received from the member for Calgary North who is very capably representing the point of view of our party in this debate. I have been encouraged by him to understand that there are provisions which we have proposed in goodwill to the government and that the government, as we speak, is giving serious consideration to supporting those amendments that would improve the bill.

In a previous intervention I said that we spend a lot of time in the House and sometimes end up in very aggressive partisan positions. The bill should reflect less partisanship and what we consider to be the best interests of the people of Canada.

Reform Motion No. 13 would delete the part of Bill C-63 that provides for the annual provision of voters' lists to MPs and parties. The Reform Party do not believe this is in the best interests of or for the benefit of the voters.

I draw the attention of the House to this because it seems to me that the purpose of and the use of voters' lists are very restricted. To step outside of those prescribed uses is an illegal act. Unless someone is going to break the law and step outside the prescribed purposes of the list, what would the value of the lists be?

I am not looking at it so much from the point of view of the cost of the preparation and distribution of the lists, which would probably be in the millions of dollars and is an important issue. I am more concerned about the actual value of those lists. If they are going to be provided to MPs and their parties, what is the actual value of the lists if they are not going to be used to the advantage of the incumbents, or at the very least, as a marketing tool for the political parties? I ask what is the relevance of these lists?

I have said that I do not want to be partisan, but again I am going to step away from that for a second. Being the heritage critic I am familiar with what is presently going on in the distribution of the flags under the encouragement of the heritage minister. It has been particularly interesting the number of people who have contacted my office knowing that my party is concerned about the fact that there will be approximately $23 million spent on the distribution of these flags all across Canada. People have recognized that it is a touchy, feel good thing by the heritage minister that will not accomplish anything. However, some things have been happening that have given me cause for concern.

When the heritage minister was trying to authenticate the reasons why the Reforms members who had helped their constituents get flags was doing an awful thing, she would stand in the House and recite on a riding by riding basis how many flags went to a given riding. If the heritage department can prepare lists on a riding by riding basis, surely that list in turn can give the name and address of where a flag was shipped.

If that information can appear in the heritage minister's hands, it could undoubtedly appear on the desk of any member of Parliament. Presumably the people who would be most interested in this initiative would be Liberal MPs. That gives us an idea of how quickly this information could potentially be misused when the government of the day uses the Canadian flag as a tool to get a list of people. The documents going out to those people are signed by members of Parliament. Of course, the individuals who ordered the flags have never or seldom been in contact with those members of Parliament.

With respect to motion No. 13 I ask the question of Liberal members: Although we know that the provisions of the bill purposely restrict the use of the names and the information on the list and although we know that the breaking of those restrictions is an illegal act, would we not be safe in assuming that someone somewhere would end up using that list for purposes that are outside the prescribed uses of the list?

I ask the people of Canada to think about this. If that list is going to be circulated to incumbent members of Parliament and to parties between elections and, supposedly, those people are not supposed to be using the list, then why are we doing it? What is the purpose of doing it in the first place?

Motion No. 12 would permit the use of existing permanent voters' lists in B.C. and Quebec. Again we look at the timeframe issue which the hon. member for Calgary West mentioned.

The government, for reasons best known to itself, has decided to accelerate this process. It allowed only two weeks for this bill to be in committee. The House was not sitting during one of those weeks. That gives us the idea that maybe there is an agenda.

If we permit the use of existing voters' lists in B.C. and Quebec, which would reflect, as my colleague has said, one-third of the electors of the country, even if we could not meet the arbitrary deadline that has been established by the Liberals to rush Bill C-63 through, with the acceptance of motion No. 12 the expanded timeframe would give Elections Canada the opportunity to become involved in saving a tremendous amount of money by merging the two lists. It only makes sense to merge the lists, not only at the federal level but also at the provincial, municipal and regional district levels.

Motion No. 11 was proposed by the Bloc. That motion is very similar to our motion No. 12 which I just described. The difference is that it would call for the mandatory use of these lists. We are proposing that there be more discretion permitted on the part of the federal electoral officer.

I appreciate the opportunity to be able to make these interventions. For the people who are interested in this debate, I hope they realize that as we grind our way through, this is a very important bill which has to do with the very foundation of our democratic process in Canada.

[Canada Elections Act, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at the concluding portion of my remarks I was referring to the fact that what we are trying to do here is create an improved bill respecting elections in Canada and the fact that I believe we have good will in this House and are attempting to do it in such a way that it be non-partisan.

However, politics being the partisan effort that it is, I would draw to the attention of the Liberals the fact that during the last Parliament it was they who were carrying on in quite a manner about the fact that the Conservatives would bring in closure. It was the Liberals who put in their red book appendix an article about people who would ascend to the position of deputy chair of this chamber.

In other words, whether we like it or not, the reality is it seems when people move from this side of the House to the other side of the House, certainly historically between the Liberals and the Conservatives, they generally carry on the position of the people on the government side of the House.

I therefore draw that to their attention because it is important to realize that when we are trying to craft something here we are trying to craft a set of rules that we can play a game with; not play a game in the sense of frivolous but indeed compete in.

Many of us enjoyed watching the Grey Cup yesterday. It was interesting that the field was of equal width at either end. It was interesting was that one set of goal posts was not lower or wider. Both sets of goal posts were exactly the same.

In other words, when we set up the rules of engagement for whatever the competition may be, whether it be a football game or a political contest, the rules be tailored in such a way that they are fair to all participants, that all participants have equal opportunity.

We know as it presently stands the government has the potential of turning around and doing whatever it will with respect to calling an election. It actually becomes something of a joke. I note in the province of Alberta the premier has been saying "soon, soon" much the same way the health minister here keeps on saying "soon, soon" with respect to tobacco taxes. The point is the

government of the day has the power to do what it will do when it wants to do it.

With that in mind, it is all the more important therefore that we make sure that the 36 day campaign be restricted exclusively to a general election. As stated previously, each party must go through a nomination process. This is a process where each party goes out of its way to cast its net as wide as it can to get as highly qualified candidates as it can. Each party must go through a process of fundraising, particularly at the constituency level where byelections are being called. Each party must build a team of people to help the candidate, help the campaign for that candidate to become successful.

As I have stated previously, it is for that reason we must have rules that are fair or as close to fair and equitable as we can so that each candidate and each party is given the opportunity to have as much time as is required to get the job done properly.

I recognize that this is a Reform motion and it has been the history of this government that motions from parties other than the Liberal Party have received very scant attention. However, in this particular case, I think it is really important for future byelections that will be held under this legislation that the members and the government, because it will be leading its members, take a serious look at this and recognize that this is the only way that we can keep the field for the election contest the same and the goal posts at the same height.

[Canada Elections Act, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this motion is rather important one from the point of view of maintaining balance and democracy. For example, if the chief government whip were to be appointed ambassador to Minnesota-well, that is hockey they say-all of a sudden that would happen in the same way that it happened with our ambassador to Israel or any number of the other wonderful appointments the Prime Minister has bestowed on members.

In terms of keeping a balance in democracy, we all recognize that within any contest, which politics truly is, we want to have a set of rules that will not create the outcome but will see that the outcome is fair and balanced and that everyone has an equal chance to participate.

My colleague from Calgary West was mentioning that there is a provision under the Parliament of Canada Act for the government to call an election within six months. However, that does not mean that it has to be held within the six months.

Again, we address the problem then for the people in the constituency where the vacancy has occurred as opposed to this situation of the government whip's going to Minnesota. We have other situations where things are less controlled, where there is perhaps illness or even the death of a member of Parliament and people are simply not represented.

I would like to speak specifically to the issue of a 36 day campaign period, particularly for the opposition party, where we have a situation such as the heritage minister's being hounded from this House on the basis of her GST promises. It is widely reported that she made that decision after seeing an opinion poll which showed that she would be re-elected in her own constituency. So boom, that was it. She was gone.

Other vacancies have occurred. I am thinking primarily of the vacancy that was created so that the person who now fulfils the role of minister of immigration could come to this House. Those vacancies occurred, as it were, at the whim and at the direction of the Prime Minister.

Everyone in the House will be aware of the fact that every political party has its own specific set of rules, but there is, after all, a nomination process. Therefore, we would have the government members of the day, in this case the Liberals, who will have absolute control over what is to be going on. They will have all of their ducks in order. If we need any evidence that in fact the Liberals did have the ducks in order, on the day the heritage minister resigned and then was going to be coming back to this Chamber by way of the vote in Hamilton, all of a sudden she was appearing at a political rally that evening with all of the signs, banners and organization, everything completely in place.

I am not speaking to that particular election. I am just pointing out that clearly she and the government had absolute control over that situation. With a 47 day campaign that absolute control ends up being somewhat diluted by virtue of the fact that as the other parties have to go through a nomination process, a fundraising process and a team building process, they could have up to 30 of the 47 days. In other words, they could have virtually a full month to go through that entire process and then conduct a very aggressive political campaign in the last 17 days.

What would happen if we were to reduce the byelection period to 36 days? If in fact it did take 30 days, and clearly it can very easily take 30 days to go through the nomination, fundraising and team building processes, then the other parties would have less than a week to get themselves organized. There would only be six days left in the election campaign for those parties to try to affect the results.

All members of the House are aware of what goes into an election campaign. Signs must be printed. Offices have to be organized. Telephones have to be installed. Billboards have to be organized. Advertising time has to be purchased. All of these things having to be put in place in a 36 day period clearly puts the advantage in the hands of the government of the day.

Motion No. 6 calls for a sense of fairness and a sense of balance. Motion No. 6 must be supported by all members of the House. This motion will provide fair and balanced political competition for the important role of member of Parliament.

Many of the proposed amendments to this bill demonstrate clearly that collectively, with a minimal amount of partisanship, we are creating rules which are fair, balanced and, above all, equitable. Democracy will be protected through this process.

[Canada Elections Act, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting things, which I am sure the government or anybody else would find in trying to create legislation that is going to work to solve a problem is to first discuss whether there is a problem of perception or a problem of a reality.

I happen to be a bit of a hybrid in that I come from British Columbia but I happen to be in the Alberta time zone so I speak with some authority to this issue. In fact, if we look at the reality, the reality is that with Internet, telephone communications and satellite services, those in western Canada who choose to avail themselves of information relative to voting patterns in Ontario, Atlantic Canada or Quebec can do so.

I may be admitting to some kind of a crime here, but in 1993, one hour after the polls closed in Ontario I made a telephone call from British Columbia to Ontario to find out what was going on. That does happen and it is a reality. However, the question has to be: How many people in western Canada actually do that?

There are only a selected number of us who choose to become candidates and a few more who choose to actually support the political parties. For the most part, there is no problem. As a matter of fact, according to the reports that I read in the news media on the most recent U.S. presidential election, the amount of information that was accessed on the Internet by people in the western U.S. about what was going on in the eastern U.S. was

minuscule. In other words, in actual fact this has no real basis of reality.

There is a problem of perception. The problem is that people will turn on their televisions in the Pacific time zone and the votes will have been in the process of having been counted for four and a half hours in Newfoundland and three hours in central Canada. The perception is that the election is over.

However, I agree with the Liberal whip that every Canadian's vote counts and is equal. I suggest to this House that in actual fact it does not make a bit of difference. There may be a perception in British Columbia on the part of some people, and a little disappointment, particularly as it happened in the 1993 election. We were expecting that Reform was going to break through in Ontario, as we will in this coming election, but we were expecting that in the 1993 election. Naturally there was a lot of disappointment for the people in western Canada that the people of Ontario had not quite woken up to the fact of what Reform was about. The fact is that it did not make a bit of difference.

What I do not understand is legislation that deals with perception only and in dealing with perception completely upsets the apple cart. Everyone in this House will be fully aware of the fact that between five o'clock and eight o'clock on election day, if they have anything approximating a team working for them, their people will have the information of whether their supporters have been out and have supported them. That not being the case is when the telephoning happens. It is part of the election process.

What we have done in British Columbia is to take one full hour out of the normal election process. Does this mean that the people of British Columbia will not get out and vote? I would suggest it could. It certainly will change the difference between the way in which the election is conducted by the respective parties and their organizations and the supporters of the candidates in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces to the way in which it is conducted in Alberta and British Columbia. They will be missing the hour between seven o'clock and eight o'clock when they could be getting their voters out.

I submit to the House that this legislation deals only with perception and is problematic. It creates problems. Instead of dealing with the real problem, it creates a real problem.

[Canada Elections Act, November 22nd, 1996]

That's Liberal consensus.

[Canada Elections Act, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to contribute to this debate as it relates to two specific articles.

It was interesting that the member from the Bloc said there is information that has to be given at a time when a person has a driver's licence. Of course that is true but the last time I looked we do not distribute the information from the driver's licence to candidates and political parties or post the information in such a way that it becomes public.

Clearly the idea of the inclusion of the date of birth may be of value with respect to the registry itself, but surely to do with the list of electors I cannot say I agree with my colleague. I cannot see any value to having that information. With respect to the comments just made that the privacy commissioner did not see the inclusion of designation of sex as a significant issue or as necessary, I would like to read a letter which is very indicative of correspondence that many of the members of our party have received and I suggest with

respect that there may be Liberals who have received this kind of correspondence.

It is dated November 29, 1995: "Thousands of Canadian women attempt to maintain the security of their domiciles with gender neutral references whenever possible. These efforts are nullified at election time by lists of electors which clearly note gender, complete with a current address. This information is widely circulated, being readily available in post offices throughout Canada, and used, copied and distributed in campaign offices extensively. When one of the research assistants to one of our members questioned Elections Canada about this system, the research assistant was informed that it was necessary to protect the integrity of the list".

The writer in this case was from the province of Alberta. She wrote: "The province of Alberta manages to elect their government without putting females at risk".

I ask the Liberals if they would not rethink this particular item. Unfortunately we have reached a point in our society-and it is a low point in our society-where women are put at risk because of certain dangerous elements in our society. We have to be much more sensitive in this place to what we are doing. With all due respect to the privacy commissioner, for whom I generally have a great deal of respect, I cannot respect his position that this is not a significant issue.

I would like to point out to the Liberals that the protestation made a couple of minutes ago that perhaps there should have been more discussion and more consultation at the committee stage is a little hollow. It is my understanding that there was a real rush to get this through committee and that, in fact, the Liberals did not allow sufficient time. As a matter of fact, it is probable that the Liberals, because they have left this matter for so long, are probably going to have to invoke closure to even get this through in time to meet their agenda.

Once again the House of Commons is being treated like a rubber stamp. The Liberals, when they suddenly wake up and discover that they have a problem with a timetable or legislation, out of the clear blue sky, very quickly, come to the House and say: "Let us punch it right on through". It is an unfortunate practice, an unfortunate happenstance, that the Liberals have chosen, systematically, to treat the House as a rubber stamp.

That being a very partisan comment, let me go back to the issue at hand. Unlike one of the Bloc members who said she would not plead or she would not negotiate, I am asking very sincerely, on behalf of the women of Canada, that the government take a very serious look at this issue of including gender on voters' lists. I say that because there are single women within my family and acquaintances who, for example, will put an initial in a phone book as opposed to designating themselves as being female.

This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of public safety for women. I ask the Liberals to rethink their position on this issue and vote in favour of the exclusion of gender on electors' lists.

[Tobacco, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary in answering for the finance minister has not given us the background to this. It is very clear that there is infighting and even with Reform Party help we cannot see that this legislation is actually going to get through the House in time. Meanwhile, hundreds, if not thousands of teenagers are becoming addicted to cigarettes.

When will the Liberals shut down their leadership race, get the health minister and finance minister on side so we can save Canadians lives?

[Tobacco, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister claims to have new evidence to support effective and enforceable anti-tobacco legislation. We have said that Reform will support such legislation on the basis of the new evidence.

While young Canadians become addicted, the health minister fights with the finance minister over tax provisions in the proposed legislation.

When will the finance minister quit the internal warfare and give the health minister a green light on taxes so we can have warfare on addiction instead of warfare in cabinet?

[Department Of Canadian Heritage, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the heritage minister boasts about the success of giving away so-called free Canadian flags. However, the costs of these free flags was originally estimated at $6 million. Now the minister says she is saving us $8 million because they are only going to be costing $15 million. Now that is what we call Liberal mathematics.

But wait, what is this? Unsolicited flags. That is right. The heritage minister's department is so anxious to hit one million flags by next February it is sending out unrequested flags-unsolicited, unrequested flags. Yet at the same time, the minister will not even return correspondence from Canadians like Robert Harriman at Kap-tan-Kool in Penticton who wants to turn over all his profits from a patriotic unity hat manufactured in British Columbia.

Compare that to the reports that Heritage Canada distributed patriotic T-shirts at a Montreal Alouette football game, T-shirts manufactured in Mexico, imprinted in the U.S., distributed in Quebec and paid for by Canadian taxpayers.

Gee, I sure hope all the flags are made in Canada.