Scott Reid

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question today for the Minister of Justice relates to an item of business that arose in question period on February 18. I asked a question at that time. I will read it and then ask for his response to it. At the time, I asked:

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the government reversed half a century of Liberal policy by declaring that the Minister of Justice favours retaining the power of disallowance--

That is Parliament's power to disallow or strike down provincial laws.

--under which his cabinet can unilaterally strike down provincial laws.

It was explained that his position is that the federal Liberals are prepared to use this power under what were described to the House as extraordinary circumstances. I invite the minister to explain to the House which provincial laws, actual or hypothetical, he would categorize as being sufficiently extraordinary to be disallowed by his cabinet.

I should mention that a cabinet power is a power that is not exercised by the House. It is exercised by the federal government. This is a power which has fallen to disuse and I will speak about that in a second. His response was simply to say:

--I am not speculating on when such a power would be used or if, even, such a power would be used. The power is there. I do not speculate on hypotheticals.

Surely that is one of the most inadequate answers ever recorded in the House.

The power of disallowance is an antiquated, colonial vestige, a holdover of the period during which Canada was a British colony, the immediate post-Confederation period. The imperial government in London had the power to strike down federal laws and the government in Ottawa was seen in a sense as a colonial power that wanted to move over the provinces. This was at a time before there were was any form of a charter of rights and this was seen as a means of protecting rights through essentially colonizing lower orders of government.

This is an antiquated power. It has not been used in Canada since 1937 and has not been contemplated since the 1940s. It is really 60 years of Liberal policy that has been reversed.

I thought I would take a moment to talk a bit about the last time this power was considered to be used. That is the only guide we have to the suggestion by the Minister of Justice that he would be willing to revisit and reuse this power.

In 1944 the CCF government in Saskatchewan was elected, the first social democratic government in North America. It proposed a series of pieces of progressive legislation, which would now be regarded as essentially middle of the road pieces of legislation, and Mackenzie King's government considered striking down those laws. This prompted Tommy Douglas to go on the radio in Saskatchewan to make certain points.

He said, “If the federal government has any doubts about the constitutionality of our legislation, this is a matter for the courts to decide. Certainly it is not a matter which comes from the duties of the federal government.

He also pointed out that in 1937 when the Quebec government passed the padlock law, which was an infringement of the rights of a free people, the federal government refused to take any action on the grounds that it could not interfere. However, when Alberta endeavoured to pass certain pieces of legislation affecting large corporations, the federal government acted with a swiftness and a ruthlessness that was amazing.

Eugene Forsey commented that one could always count on the federal government using its power to intervene on the side of the big guns, as he put it. It seems to me this power remains a great danger for this reason and it seems to me it is appropriate and indeed incumbent upon the Minister of Justice to say that he would never under any circumstances use this power.

[Symbol for the House of Commons, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today in support of this motion. The goal of establishing a formally agreed upon symbol for the House of Commons seems to be a worthwhile one.

To some degree, institutions develop their own symbols in an informal manner. Sometimes the informally chosen symbols are the most valuable. Part of my comments today will be an observation about the informal symbols that we have adopted and their value, but there is no harm, indeed, perhaps there is a benefit, in attempting to formalize the symbols that we have informally started to adopt as a part or as symbols of this place.

Perhaps I will start by talking a little about the symbols which on their surface I think people relate to the House of Commons. These perhaps could serve as potential ideas to be thrown into the mill for future reference.

An obvious one is the mace, of course, which is already used. On all MPs' badges, which all members are assigned and which some of my colleagues are wearing today, the mace is used to signal that one is a member of the House of Commons. So the mace is already used as a method of identification elsewhere. The mace is used in other spots as the symbol of the Speaker's authority but also of the House itself. Of course that authority is given to the Speaker by the House and therefore at one remove the mace is already an important symbol of the House of Commons. There are good things and bad things about that.

The mace is a beautiful work of art and has tremendous historical importance. It is the symbol of the independence of the House, of course, because the original purpose of the mace was that of a club to be used by the Sergeant-at-Arms to fend off the king's men if they tried to come into the House when they were not invited. It has an important symbolism.

One problem with it is that the mace's design is not unique to the Canadian House of Commons. There are maces in other Canadian legislatures that are unique. I think of the very beautiful mace that I saw a couple of years ago when I was visiting Yellowknife; it is the mace of the Northwest Territories. It really is uniquely designed for that House. It captures both the tradition and the uniqueness of the territories. That was not done with our mace, which is identical to those used in a number of other countries within the Commonwealth of Nations.

Another thing that could be used as a symbol, of course, is the Speaker's chair or throne, which is also a very beautiful object. As well, the peace tower strikes me as being an obvious item that could be used as our symbol; certainly when people see the peace tower it is instantly identifiable with Parliament. One could argue whether or not it is more identifiable with Parliament as a whole, including the Senate, or whether we could legitimately appropriate it for our own purposes and use that as our symbol. These are all options.

I should emphasize, however, that right now we actually do use informally a symbol, the coat of arms of Canada, on many items that are associated with the House of Commons. For example, when members of Parliament select their business cards, one of the standard designs, and the design that I have used for my business card since I was first elected, includes the coat of arms of Canada. It is seen as indicating one's participation in the Canadian political process.

I am well aware that this is the symbol of Canada, the Government of Canada, and we could argue that therefore the House is not sufficiently distinct from it, but I do not think there is anything wrong with appropriating a symbol that is used more widely and saying that it is also our symbol. The House of Commons binders and correspondence folders many of us use also carry the coat of arms of Canada. It is even used as the default screen saver on our computers and appears on my computer whenever I leave it alone and do not use it for more than five minutes.

The coat of arms is a possibility. The whole idea of using coats of arms is one that is widely used by legislatures. I know, for example, that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario has its own coat of arms. That is its symbol. The easiest way to see this is by watching the Ontario version of CPAC, the channel that broadcasts the debates of the Ontario legislature. We see that coat of arms being used as the motif.

Actually, I think that is not a very good idea. I say that because its coat of arms bears no relationship to any of the symbols that are commonly associated with the province of Ontario. When we see the symbol, there is no instinctive understanding of what it represents. In some measure, I think it would have been better to just use the coat of arms of Ontario as its motif.

I have seen in other jurisdictions that I have either visited or lived in, the use of symbols derived from a coat of arms. Given the importance of coats of arms as our standard form of symbolic representation in Canada, it seems to me there might be some merit in this.

For example, the Parliament of the state of Victoria in Australia uses as its motif a southern cross, which is a simplified version of the coat of arms of the state of Victoria. That works quite well. It is clearly understood that is its symbol. The red lion of Tasmania which is taken from its coat of arms is used as the symbol of the Parliament of Tasmania. In Western Australia it is the black swan, which is central to its coat of arms.

If we look at the documents produced by the Quebec national assembly, we will see that the fleur-de-lys is used. It is part of the symbolism of Quebec. Documents, laws and white papers coming from the legislative assembly in Quebec are very distinctive and easily recognizable by the use of the fleur-de-lys as the ornamentation and background. As well, a distinctive font is used for all its documents, which is something else we might want to consider for the House of Commons.

My hon. colleague mentioned the use of seals in the United States. Coats of arms are not used in the United States apparently as a result of the fact that in the revolution, the Americans rejected any idea of aristocracy, nobility or symbols of nobility. Therefore the next thing to turn to would be seals. The U.S. President, for example, has his own seal and uses it to seal documents. That is a holdover from the seals that are used to indicate Crown authority. A seal is affixed by the Governor General of Canada to every law that is passed by Parliament. That is an American tradition and it fits within a pattern of usage. We have come to understand that each of the various departments in the U.S. has its own seal which typically then is put on a flag, if a department has a flag. It is used by various states. The idea of the seal as a symbol of authority is well understood in the United States.

In Canada the idea of a coat of arms is the central symbological notion. Therefore it seems to me that any symbol we take should potentially be derived from the coat of arms of Canada. We have a very rich and elaborate coat of arms. We could take an element from the coat of arms, simplify it and use it as our symbol. There are numerous maple leafs. We could incorporate the national symbol of the maple leaf into the symbol that is chosen.

It does not mean that items that are not in the coat of arms, such as the mace, necessarily would have to be excluded. However, I would suggest that some elements from the coat of arms be incorporated with whatever distinctively parliamentary item is put into the standard and accepted symbol of this place, whether it be the mace, the Speaker's chair, the Peace Tower or some other item.

[Petitions, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from several parts of my beautiful constituency signed by people from Perth, who some say is the prettiest town in Ontario, Verona, Harrowsmith and elsewhere. This petition concerns the definition of marriage.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House the fact that marriage is the best foundation for families and for the raising of children. They point out that the majority of Canadians currently support the traditional definition of marriage. They remind the House that it is the duty and obligation of the House to legislate on this subject and to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, bureaucratization is a problem in all federal departments and economic development agencies. It is indeed a real problem.

I think these agencies need to have a number of offices. I do not know if 15 offices is the appropriate number for the regions of Quebec. However, there is a need for a large number of offices since this agency's purpose is to serve the regions of the vast province of Quebec.

As for the duplication of services provided by the Quebec government, which has a real interest in the development of its regions, it is possible to do some realignment within the department to reduce the number of bureaucrats and thus reduce the costs related to those bureaucrats, not those related to the beneficiaries of the services provided by the department.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from the Bloc. I think that what he said could be the follow up of a conversation with the minister. His comments were sensible.

Seeing as that too is not really a question directed at me, I will return to the theme I was dwelling on of the politicization of these moneys.

I mentioned the case of the money for eastern Ontario, which is not a unique case. It is simply the one that happened to involve me most closely because it was my riding, among others. The announcement was forthcoming, but once it turned out that the Liberals had lost those seats, the money was not forthcoming and there were constant delays. All the moneys before Treasury Board needed approval, it was not meeting, it could not get it on the agenda. Month after month that went on and the money was not available.

Finally, in October I had my office called one of the corporations, the CFDC, to see ask what was happening. That was at 9 a.m. on Friday. I had instructed my office to say that I would be raising a question about it at 11 a.m. in question period. Almost immediately following the conversation between my staffer and the folks at the CFDC, an email announcement was put out by CFDC saying that the money would be forthcoming and that I would be asking a question about it.

The extent to which the politicization has gone on here and the extent to which money will only be given if it is something to the partisan benefit of the Liberals is extraordinary. With the amendments we have made, we hope to reduce that. Frankly, I think all members in the House should want to have the regional development money in Quebec, Ontario, wherever, be issued for the advantage and benefit of those who are in the regions and not for the advantage of Liberal contestants for public office.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually not the critic for the ministry. I am the critic for a parallel ministry, FedNor, which is an agency that provides economic development in Ontario.

Given that the minister's question really was not related to my comments, it is somewhat difficult for me to respond. He was carrying on an earlier conversation with a member from the Bloc Québécois.

However, I thought I might to talk a bit about the way in which the federal government, through its agencies, has politicized the spending of money. I want to give an example that actually occurred in my own backyard, in the beautiful counties of Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington and in other beautiful counties in eastern Ontario.

The very day before the last election there was an announcement of $10 million in development money for eastern Ontario, very welcomed money. It was given through a very effective and efficient model of distribution known as the Community Futures Development Corporations, a model that should be expanded upon and should become a greater proportion of regional economic development money in Canada. I think that would work in all parts of the country just as well as it does in the areas where it currently is in place.

It was very good that the money was given. What was interesting about the money and about the timing of the money was it came one day prior to the drop of the writ in an election where a number of Liberal held rural seats in eastern Ontario were very much at risk. These included seats held by Larry McCormick the Liberal MP who I ran against, Joe Jordan, the ex-Liberal MP for Leeds and Grenville, and several other seats, all of which were lost by the Liberals with one exception, the seat of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. It was striking.

Whereas in the prior election in 2000, when these seats were not seen as being at risk, although two of them were lost to the Canadian Alliance, there was no interest in giving out money. Nor was there in the 1997 election. What we saw was only when seats were in danger was the money forthcoming and then it was only forthcoming right before an election.

This is the pattern of politicization. Money is offered when it is seen as a way of buying seats that are at risk for the Liberals, whether this is happening in Ontario, in the west, in Quebec or in the Atlantic. That is a great shame. This is what we hope, through the amendments made by the Conservative MPs on the committee, to bring to an end, or at least to reduce as much as possible, in Canada's regional development activities. They should be focussed on improving the local economies, not at improving the prospects of Liberal candidates.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate on behalf of my party in the debate on third reading of Bill C-9. This bill's short title is the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, and all it does is create that agency from an Industry Canada portfolio program.

On November 5 last year, during the second reading debate on this bill, we spoke of putting the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec on equal legal footing with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, but this bill focuses primarily on cosmetic changes. As a result of this bill, no one will change their responsibilities or phone number. This bill is just about changing letterhead and business cards to signal a new legal status.

Our party also said that, as a matter of fact, changes provided for in the bill have already been implemented. For example, the minister responsible for this agency, the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie was named July 20, 2004 nearly nine or ten months ago, and we still have not approved the creation of his department.

The Liberals' arrogance shows through, since they are presuming on the cooperation of a minority Parliament. Nonetheless, the Conservative Party is in favour of this bill because it agrees exactly with paragraph 33 of the Conservative Party of Canada's policy declaration, which reads:

The Conservative Party recognizes that regional development policies are an important part of any comprehensive strategy to assist the regions of Canada to meet the opportunities of the new global economy. Regional development agencies, like ACOA, WED, FEDNOR and CED-Q, must be depoliticized and focussed on attracting new private sector investments.

Since this bill deals generally with administrative changes, there is no reason to reject it. Besides, we have found some elements that deserve our support. First, it puts the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec more or less on a level playing field. Like our critic said on November 5, we are still aware of important differences in the goals of the four regional development agencies, but Bill C-9 is a step forward.

Moreover, as modified by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology Bill C-9 can serve as a model for other regional development agencies. For example, all Canadians want to take the politics out of regional development. All non-Liberal Canadians want to take the politics out of regional development.

One of the Conservative amendments at committee prohibits announcements during an election campaign. The new subclause 5(3) reads:

No grant or contribution shall be announced from the date that a federal election has been called until the day after voting day.

Preventing regional campaigning with regional development money during a federal election is simply the logical thing to do. It should not even need to be said but the behaviour of the Liberal government and in particular of the sponsorship scandal confirms the absolute necessity of depoliticizing at all times the spending of public money.

In this way the new subclause 5(3) that the Conservative member has proposed is a huge step forward and should serve as a model for the other regional development agencies.

Another clause of Bill C-9 that the Conservative MPs proposed and that should be extended to other regional development agencies is the new clause 10(2), which demands better cooperation between the Canadian and Quebec governments. This clause reads:

10(2) In carrying out its object, the Agency shall take such measures as will promote cooperation and complementarity with Quebec and communities in Quebec.

The new spirit of cooperation in clause 10(2) is found in various other amendments that the committee made to Bill C-9.

Of the various regional development agencies across Canada, only one, CED, is focused solely on one whole province.

In western Canada, the Department of Western Economic Diversification promotes the development and diversification of the economies of the four western provinces.

In the east, ACOA promotes the economic interests of the four provinces in Atlantic Canada. In both cases, these agencies have to work with four different provincial governments. By contrast, CED exists only in Quebec and its responsibilities are limited to Quebec's boundaries.

Given that the department's territorial responsibilities coincide exactly with those of Quebec's democratically elected government, there is a possibility of conflict between the goals of an agency filled with Ottawa appointed bureaucrats and the goals of the Government of Quebec. For this reason, it is particularly important to ensure compatibility between the department's actions and those of the Quebec government.

In fact, the record of turbulent relations between Ottawa and Quebec and the distrust which is the root of the impressive growth of the sovereignty movement confirms a sad reality; we must at all costs protect a Quebec provincial government, whatever its stripes, from unwarranted federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Our Constitution divides powers between the federal and provincial governments. Sadly, the track record of past federal Liberal governments does not inspire confidence.

In fact, the fiscal imbalance is one of the main reasons why Quebeckers tolerate the existence of CED. As we all know, the federal government collects roughly two thirds of the taxes paid in Canada, while the provinces have to provide the most expensive services such as health care, welfare and education. The gap between provincial sources of revenue and the costs of meeting their obligations is the main reason for shared programs such as medicare.

While we must support the bill over the long term, we must address the root problem which is the fiscal imbalance. Until that situation is addressed, any regional development policy is really just a symbolic gesture. In fact, given that Bill C-9 does not require the spending of an additional dime in the development of Quebec's forest regions, it is important to underscore again that Bill C-9 is only a token gesture.

In a similar way, our support of Bill C-9 is a clear demonstration of the Conservative Party's strong desire to encourage a tighter and more productive cooperation between the federal government and the Government of Quebec. The new clauses proposed by Conservative MPs that demand a tighter and more productive cooperation between Ottawa and Quebec City with respect to Quebec's regional development are the main reasons why our party supports the bill. They are inspired by paragraph 14 of the Conservative Party's 2005 policy declaration which reads:

1. A Conservative Government will work co-operatively with the provinces to improve the lives of Canadians while respecting the division of powers and responsibilities outlined in the Constitution.

We see these new clauses as a precedent to be enshrined in other bills. Thus Bill C-9 could help us to build a stronger and more united Canada.

Nonetheless, Bill C-9 is nothing more than an insufficient first step. A name change in itself does note create a single additional job or stimulate the economy of any the disadvantaged regions of Quebec.

We should not forget either that the Liberal government finds itself in a scandal without precedent in Canadian history. The sponsorship scandal, the Prime Minister's relationship with Claude Boulay, his relationship with Earnscliffe, the government's contracts with his old company, CSL, reveal a government the depth of which true corruption is still unknown.

We have to replace the government and Quebeckers, more than any other Canadians, are cognizant of this fact.

While Quebeckers prepare for a federal election, I want to underscore that our support for Bill C-9 is based on three principles: first, our commitment to Quebec's regional development; second, our dedication to keeping politics out of regional development in Quebec and in all other regions of Canada; and third, our insistence that the federal government respect at all times the division of powers and responsibilities outlined in the Canadian Constitution. We offer them truly, for the first time in a decade, the possibility of a government that is honest, pan-Canadian and inclusive of Quebec's point of view. I invite them to consider it.

[Petitions, May 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition to present today, and it is almost a novelty to be presenting one that is not on same sex marriage. This petition is on the subject of the right to save seeds.

The petitioners want Parliament to recognize the inherent right of farmers, developed from thousands of years of custom and tradition, to save, re-use, exchange and select seeds. They point out that newly proposed restrictions on farmers' traditional practices criminalize these ancient practices and could harm farmers, citizens and society in general.

[Petitions, May 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present to the House today on the subject of marriage and the traditional definition of marriage. I have presented over 20 of these petitions now.

The petitioners say that whereas the traditional definition of marriage is the best basis for raising families and children and whereas the majority of Canadians are in favour of the traditional definition of marriage, they would like to see the traditional definition of marriage continued. They point out that it ought to be Parliament rather than the courts that rule on this.

These petitions like the others have come from across my riding from Barry's Bay, from Smith's Falls and from beautiful Ardoch.

[Canada Elections Act, May 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord for his excellent bill.

This is a very good bill. The proposed bill brings to a conclusion a process of gradual improvement to our electoral law which has made the electoral law of Canada, in most respects, one of the most admired in the world and deservedly one of the most admired in the world.

I want to run through some of the things that I think are good about our current law. The hon. parliamentary secretary has already run through some of these things as well, but I will add to his list.

It seems to me that the various abuses that used to be practised by parties of all stripes in elections have gradually been stripped away by various measures we have adopted over the past century. It started with the secret ballot, which eliminated the possibility of watching voters and then bribing them and paying them off afterwards, and the introduction of counterfoils, which ensured that ballots could not be placed in the hand of a voter by an outside agent already marked. That was an important innovation. The presence of scrutineers from all candidates ensured that improperly marked ballots could be set aside and that properly marked ballots could not be set aside as if they were improperly marked.

The ability to engage in judicial recounts where there were close elections was an important feature we had that was very positive in our country. The presence in every polling location of a deputy returning officer and the poll clerk, appointed by the two parties that did the best in that riding in the previous election, ensured that funny business could be kept to a minimum or, in fact, virtually eliminated. Having run in two elections, I can say that this part of the system functioned very well indeed.

I should note as well that the Chief Electoral Officer of the country is appointed essentially until the age of 65 and can only be replaced for essentially the abuse of his office. That also is a good system that works well.

It seems odd to me, therefore, that with our Chief Electoral Officer selected in the proper manner and every other person, right down to the scrutineers, deputy returning officers and poll clerks, elected in the correct manner or chosen in a manner that is not subject to abuse, we have one position that remains essentially a patronage appointment, an order in council appointment, one which is always held by the party in power at the time, it being of course the returning officer for each riding. This bill seeks to remedy that situation. I think it is an excellent idea.

The question of whether or not returning officers have ever acted in a partisan manner or in an abusive manner is not the problem. I think it does occur from time to time but in general, that is not the problem. The problem of confidence however is widespread. My hon. colleague, the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, pointed to a number of spectacular examples, but I can think of a few examples that have come to my own attention. In fact, a few have occurred in my own riding in the last election where I thought that things could have been done a great deal better had someone with a greater and more impressive set of professional skills been put in place. Let me give some examples of this.

The improper labelling of many hundreds, possibly thousands, of voter cards, so that the cards were sent to people, advising them to vote in the wrong riding. This occurred and many cases were brought to my attention. In some cases, people were told to vote in an advanced poll in one riding and in an election day poll in another riding. This was not just from my own riding, but also in some of the surrounding ridings. I know this because people came and said that they were confused. They were told to vote in my riding although they did not live in it, or, they were told to vote outside the riding even though they did live in it.

The improper location of polling stations was a huge problem in my own constituency. In one case a polling location was located in a spot where people living in a place called White Lake in the northeast corner of my constituency could not vote in the proposed location without leaving the riding and engaging in an hour-long drive to re-enter the riding.

There was a road connecting the polling station with the location where the residents were voting. The trouble is that the road, which is called the California Trail, is a little less impressive than its name suggests. It is actually a snowmobile trail and impassable in summer. This would have been known by someone who had proper local knowledge. However, because it was a partisan appointment made at the last second, the returning officer did not know. She had to go out and investigate, and get to know the back roads of the riding. We had a problem, which she in all fairness tried to correct when it was drawn to her attention. These are some of the examples.

I have another example from my own constituency during the last election. At one location in the riding, where many people went to vote because it was the traditional spot where they had voted, they found that they were not on the list because their cards had been labelled incorrectly. The returning officer, despite warnings from my official agent, had not provided adequate forms at that polling station to allow people to sign in. When the forms ran out, the deputy returning officer at the station was unable to sign people in.

Some of the voters were so upset at being told that they effectively were being deprived of their franchise they blockaded the entrance to the polling station. This had the consequence that other people could not vote. The police were called in to open up the voting station. In the meantime, the situation was resolved only because my campaign people went out and printed up some of the necessary forms to allow people to continue voting. We then had to bill Elections Canada for that and it reimbursed us, but that should not have happened. There are many other examples and I am just providing a few of the ones that have come to my attention.

Therefore, I think there are a number of solutions that would occur simply because we would have professional people working at this key job instead of the political appointees we now have.

I want to draw to the attention of the sponsor of the bill to three minor problems that I see with this very good legislation. First, it seems to me that there ought to be something in the bill that allows for an appointment on very short notice, if someone, for example, a returning officer, who does not meet the residence requirements laid out in the bill should for example fall ill or otherwise become unable to carry out his or her functions within the period immediately preceding a potential election or during a writ period. I think that could be added in. I suspect that the sponsor of the bill would be very sympathetic toward that.

Second, it seems to me that there might be merit to having a review of the conduct of each returning officer conducted after each election with each of the candidates who participated in the election, or their official agents could send in some of form of review sheet to the Chief Electoral Officer, so that the Chief Electoral Officer could sift through and see whether or not the returning officer in each of the ridings was performing up to scratch.

Finally, in subclause 24(4) of the new bill there is a suggestion that returning officers positions become vacant if the returning officer dies, resigns or ceases to reside in the electoral district. It seems to me that these people could move from the electoral district to an adjoining electoral district where they could still conduct their affairs as returning officers without losing their position, given that the bill anticipates in an earlier section that someone can be a returning officer if they are domiciled in an adjacent electoral district but able to perform the functions of a returning officer as satisfactorily as if they were domiciled in the electoral district for which their appointment was made. It seems to me that this slight change would allow them a little more freedom of movement without losing their office and without in any way harming the general intent of the bill.

I will conclude by pointing out that the general tone of this proposed law is very much in keeping with the direction in which the Conservative Party is moving. I want to read from one of the policies of the Conservative Party. Policy No. 6 states:

A Conservative Government will ensure that senior officers such as the Auditor General, Chief Electoral Officer, Comptroller General, Ethics Commissioner, Information Commissioner, and Privacy Commissioner will be appointed by Parliament and report to it.

The idea of ensuring that non-parliamentary and government control is removed over appointments of importance to the functioning of our democracy and of the openness for our system is very important to the Conservative Party. The bill, as I say, fits in with our policy.

This is an excellent law. I would hope that sometime within the next year a Conservative government will be able to introduce and follow through on a version of this legislation.