Scott Reid

[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.

[Petitions, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have seven petitions to present today, all on the same subject. They are from across the constituency, from Lanark Highlands, Denbigh, Carleton Place, Millhaven, Smiths Falls, Perth, Northbrook, Godfrey, et cetera.

The petitioners, of which there are over a thousand, call upon Parliament to preserve the current and traditional definition of marriage. They do so on the following basis. They say that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children and that the majority of Canadians support the current legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union of one man and one woman.

They believe as well that it is very important that fundamental matters of social policy, such as the definition of marriage, be decided by members of Parliament and not by the unelected judiciary.

[Citizen Engagement, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I want to ask a question of the member who is famous for his mathematical moments.

I am sort of switching gears between his great passion for how the House works to my great passion for electoral reform. I want to mention one of the problems that seems to occur in systems other than our current system. Our system has the great virtue of extreme simplicity. We vote for a bunch of people and whoever gets the most votes wins, whether or not he or she has 50% of the votes. Just or unjust, it is certainly comprehensible. Other systems almost always wind up involving some level of complexity. Frequently they require vote allocations based on formulas, usually named after the person who came up with it. The Sainte-Laguë formula is used in New Zealand and the Droop formula, named after Mr. Droop who invented it, is used in Australia.

For those who are not as passionate about the peculiarities of mathematics, does this kind of thing lead to a problem? If voters do not know, if voters cannot see easily the results of what they are doing, is there a danger that they will lose the kind of interest and passion that the member has? Perhaps not all of us or perhaps not all of the citizens share the same enthusiasm. Is there a danger that we could not win? Are there other suggestions he has as to how to boost the interest and engagement of voters in the whole system?

[Citizen Engagement, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I have a comment to make rather than a question, but it backs up what my hon. colleague has just said.

I have tried as a member of Parliament to vote with the wishes of my constituents and to do so in a way that to some degree would replicate the kind of citizen engagement there would be if there was a formal referendum process in this country. We do have the Referendum Act, but it is used very selectively. Over the course of the last 100 years it has been used three times. There have only been three referendums from 1896 to 1992.

We do have what we call constituent referendums where a postal ballot is mailed to all households. I have done this with respect to a number of laws. I explain in the mailing why I am consulting my constituents and why I regard an issue as important. I provide a non-partisan description of the bill as well.

I did this in the prior Parliament with respect to Bill C-5, the Species at Risk Act. I included the review that was done for members by the Library of Parliament and included it in the mailout. I included it so people would understand the general purpose of the bill in a non-partisan kind of way and also included arguments for and against the legislation.

In order to ensure that I provide fair and reasonable arguments, I took arguments from individuals who actually advocated for or against the legislation in debates in committee, in debates in the House or from newspaper editorials and so on. I tried to give a representative sample of the arguments for and against the legislation. Thanks to the magic of the Internet further documents and links could be put in to allow people to look at it and consult. This is particularly easy on something like same sex marriage where there are numerous websites that promote either side of the argument.

Having done this, I can say this produces a lot of citizen engagement as well as a lot of respect for an MP. I did it on two pieces of legislation in the last Parliament where I actually voted against my party based on the recommendations of my constituents. One was the most important piece of legislation that faced the 37th Parliament and that was the Anti-terrorism Act. When I asked my constituents whether I should vote in favour of the bill at third reading if no sunset clause was included in it, the majority told me not to vote in favour of it. I voted against it. Only four members of my party broke ranks and voted against that legislation. I was one of those four.

On another occasion I was the only member of the entire opposition to vote in favour of a law. It was a lonely experience, but it was what my constituents had instructed me to do.

The number of people who respond to these constituent referendums can be substantial. In one constituent referendum I asked whether I should opt in or out of the MP pay raise. I had over 3,000 responses.

This kind of mechanism, if used by MPs, can produce a lot of citizen engagement and involvement. It seems to me that it is a healthy antidote to the danger that worries many MPs on the government side. They think that we are just going to get anarchy and people going off in different directions. If we have to go through the process and the discipline of explaining in an objective way to our constituents what the nature of an argument is, we are unlikely to be led astray unless the government itself has wandered astray from where public opinion actually happens to be.

[Citizen Engagement, May 3rd, 2005]

Madam Chair, early in the minister's comments she made reference to something just in passing, but I hope I will be able to encourage her to expand upon it.

She said that there is need for party reform if electoral reform occurs, which interests me. I think there is always a benefit to reforming and democratizing one's party even if there is no electoral reform. I got myself embroiled in a bit of a controversy over attempting to do some of this in my own party last month, although I still think that the policies I proposed are substantial improvements on the status quo. Some of them did actually get put through and I think they are a benefit to the democracy of our party.

However, leaving self-promotion aside, what I wanted to do was inquire about that, and because I am only going to get one shot at asking the minister of state a question, I am also going to ask her about her experience with her blog. I hear people starting to say that a blog is a useful tool. I would be interested in hearing from another person who has experienced it and might be able to add comments that would be of use to all of us.

[Citizen Engagement, May 3rd, 2005]

Madam Chair, one of the concerns we are talking about is participation. I bring this up because of the fact that the committee on which both the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh and I sit in plans to report to the House. I am sure the minister would take notice that what we would be reporting deals with electoral reform.

One of the problems that can occur with electoral reform, which was mentioned to us in our travels, is that if the system is too complicated, that is if there is a difficulty in determining what the effect of one's vote is and how one is making a difference, then that seems to lower citizen engagement. I think it is a real problem.

On the other hand, the arguments in favour of electoral reform on the basis that we ought to have election results which in some way resemble the voting patterns of the population as opposed to reflecting the random results of the first past the post system also has the effect of lowering people's rates of participation. I suspect that when one talks about young people, and I increasingly find it harder to relate instinctively as some of my younger colleagues can, to the feelings of young people, I think part of what is driving them not to vote is the sense that it is not going to make a difference.

Does my colleague have any thoughts on how we reconcile the prospect of changing with the need for some kind of transparency to allow an electoral system that will hopefully have some effect in raising citizen participation not only among young people, but among others who do not participate. One could look at other groups that have low participation rates if that seems appropriate.

[Citizen Engagement, May 3rd, 2005]

Two senators for each state. There was no change in that respect.

We will remember the talk about the triple E senate being equally effective. While it was a double E senate, it was equal and effective. There were very high level debates in the senate. The office of senator was highly respected, although it was not an elected office. The famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, for example, were debates of two candidates for the senate in the late 1850s.

There were a number of things that were problematic about this. It was not democratic for one thing. In addition, and the Lincoln-Douglas debates point this out, they went to these debates in front of vast audiences and argued the democratic and republican positions on the issue of slavery, western expansion and so on, and then people voted for their members of the state legislature largely based on who those people would then vote for in the state house to send to Washington as their senator, which means that to some degree the legislature was being turned into an electoral college for senators.

I do not want to exaggerate the importance of this transformation into an electoral college of the state houses but it was a problem. Of course, having discharged that one responsibility, a person then had to get on for the next two or four years, depending on the state one was in, with actually governing the state and other issues under state jurisdiction might not have been discussed in the fullness with which they should have been discussed. That was a problem.

What happened was the progressive movement of the 1890s and particularly the first decade of the 20th century arose and there was a movement for a variety of improvements, many of them democratic, including the introduction of the primary system to control the party bosses. There were some temperance movements that were tied in with it as well.

It was very much a populace movement. There was a lot of citizen engagement, some of it unfortunately tinged with racism and so on. None the less it was a genuine populace movement.

The state of Oregon decided that state elections would be held to select senators with the first election being held in, I think, 1906. This movement was already taking place in other states, but the election happened first in Oregon with the senator being accepted. The senate had the capability to reject a member of its body, but that was not done and the senator from Oregon was elected.

Senate elections occurred on a two year cycle. In 1908 there was a larger number. This number also increased with the 1910 elections. In 1913 an amendment was proposed which required acceptance by three-fourths of all the states making senate elections mandatory.

I do not think, as a result of that, the quality of the United States senate has gone down. It was always regarded as the chamber in which a more thoughtful level of debate occurred than that which occurred in the House of Representatives. Tocqueville points out that comparison.

Although the House of Representatives has become better, the senate has still retained a kind of gravitas that comes from the length of service. For example, Ted Kennedy has been around for years and so have many other senators. Unlike the lower house, it also has the advantage of not being subject to gerrymandering which is a severe problem unfortunately in the United States.