GOVERNMENT ORDERS

CANADA ELECTIONS ACT

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Kootenay East who has four minutes remaining in his intervention.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): 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.

(1520 )

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.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have before us an amendment proposed by the Reform Party to maintain a slightly longer period for a byelection than one would for a general election.

I support this type of amendment, and I will explain why. In a general election, the parties knew it was coming, so they have a chance to set up their campaign machine, the people who volunteer their services such as fundraising, an indispensable adjunct to the democratic process which includes exercising the right to vote and the election campaign that precedes voting day. Obviously, in a general election, the parties have had a chance to prepare for the event.

However, with a byelection that comes out of the blue, the parties do not get the same advance notice, except of course the government party which has all the time in the world to decide when. It is clear that the government party would have an unfair competitive edge since it sets the date, which gives it plenty of time to get ready to face the opposition parties in a campaign that will last for a very limited period.

In that kind of situation, the opposition parties would have to recruit volunteers very quickly, which is not easy, and get their grassroots financing. And by the way, those parties that are funded by multinationals get huge cheques. As you can imagine, that kind of fundraising is much easier. The other parties, including the Bloc Quebecois, which raise money from their members and the general public in the form of small contributions, will have to work much harder over a much longer period of time.

(1525)

It will therefore be understood that this is necessary in byelections so that all parties, the government party and the opposition parties, may act under fair rules and within an extended period of time. The Reform Party motion is well received in this connection.

Let me remind you that the government party has not always acted with-shall I say-all the respect it ought to have shown to the opposition parties. I refer specifically to the byelections held last February in three Quebec ridings.

At that very moment, the Bloc Quebecois was involved in a leadership race. The energies of our activists, our volunteers, were focussed on that, yet we had at the same time to campaign in three separate ridings. This shows that the precautions contained in the Reform motion are not without purpose.

Indeed, the government party, understandably, wants to hold an election at the time that is best for it and, consequently, the worst time for the opposition parties. They cannot be faulted for that. It is to be expected, strategically speaking. Nevertheless, the public interest must take precedent in such cases. The goal must be, not so much to give the opposition parties the opportunity to get organized, but to ensure that the public interest is protected by a democratically held election.

You will agree that, if the opposition parties lack the time to prepare themselves, to get organized, to explain what they have to offer to the population of a riding holding a byelection, the voters in that riding are being totally deprived of the public debate that ensures a healthy democracy. The voters in the riding are deprived of the possibility of making the most informed choice possible.

Because we are in a democracy, we have to respect not only the underlying principles, but the means. I do not doubt that the government party has all the necessary respect for the underlying principles of democracy, but it must also have respect for the means.

Let us face it, a party in power will one day sit on the opposition side. Consequently, what I have to say today in support of the Reform motion is, in reality, also for the benefit of the party in power at the present time.

You will have understood, of course, that by the time this rule applies, the Bloc will likely be elsewhere, its mission accomplished, but on behalf of the democracy which is, and will remain,

in Canada and in Quebec, I believe that the Reform Party motion ought to be well received by this House.

[English]

Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks with respect to the amendment that we proposed to Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. The amendment relates to byelections and the period of time in which those byelections can take place.

Historically, as all members know, elections campaigns have been carried out over a 47 day period. A sequence of events took place during those 47 days which, generally, was acceptable to Canadians. That 47 day period allowed both government members and opposition members to adjust.

(1530 )

This piece of legislation shortens the time period for a byelection from 47 days down to 36 days. In some cases that may be okay. For example when because of ill health someone passes away a period of time exists afterward and there is a bit of notice not only to the government but also the opposition parties in terms of filling that vacancy. There is some notice.

The major concern is that there are other situations. In this 35th Parliament there have been a number of situations where someone resigned on one day immediately after which the Prime Minister announced the byelection in the respective constituency and all parties were supposed to be ready. In that kind of a situation the government party is at an advantage.

Let us take the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister. We knew that the Deputy Prime Minister should resign and the opposition, the Reform Party questioned the government day after day, checking on the integrity and the actions of the government. We asked that if the Deputy Prime Minister really said that if the GST was not eliminated, killed, scrapped or done away with, if that did not happen, that she would resign. It took some days to prove it. We had to work on that. Knowing that this government had such a massive majority we were not sure that the Deputy Prime Minister would stick with that statement, show integrity and resign. The day came when all of a sudden the Deputy Prime Minister resigned. It happened. We were not sure when that was going to happen but the government was.

In the backrooms people like Hosek, Goldenberg and all those other backroom strategists who pull the strings of this government and really run the government, who tell the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the House leader and the whip what to do, had a lead time of two or three weeks to plan the events of the byelection. They were able to notify the people in Hamilton that there was going to be a byelection and to get themselves ready, raise their funds, get their campaign people together, that the Deputy Prime Minister was going to make an announcement. Quietly they could do that and I am sure they did.

The plug was pulled. There was a byelection. There were 47 days. We here in the Reform Party scrambled around, got a good candidate in place, raised funds, got our constituency organization working, brought people in from a variety of places to campaign, but we were somewhat at a disadvantage.

The government now wants to say that all of that can be done in 36 days. Who is winning out of that kind of a major amendment in the legislation? It is all to the advantage of the government.

I commented earlier in some of my statements in committee that a 36 day campaign for a regular election is not a bad idea. What is the difference? The difference is that going into a general election, opposition members, whether they are with one of the recognized parties or one of those parties that are disappearing into oblivion like the Progressive Conservative Party, if they have any smarts and are sitting in this House and making some general observations, which can be done even here today, they know that by the spring 1997 there will be a general federal election, or if it is not in the spring it will be in October 1997.

Those are easy observations. Anybody can do that. As political parties, just like the government, we should set some target dates in 1996 or 1997. I would think that all parties should have all or at least 90 per cent of their nominations completed by the end of March 1997 so they are ready. Then the candidates can work, raise funds, get their teams together and be prepared for a general election. There is notification and a 36 day campaign could work under those circumstances.

(1535 )

The better situation would be if there were fixed dates for elections so that every four years we would know exactly when we would vote. That would be a much better situation rather than allowing the government to play politics in the elections.

The case I made relative to the amendment is that we should have a longer notice period. In our amendment we have suggested a 30 day freeze period after a member vacates a seat for a variety of reasons. There are good reasons for that if we look at the examples here in the House.

David Berger was appointed as the ambassador to Israel at a salary range of between $88,000 and $103,000. That opened a seat and subsequently there was a byelection. It could have been called immediately the day he was appointed as the ambassador to Israel.

Jean Robert Gauthier was appointed as a senator. The day he was appointed and resigned his seat, a byelection could have been announced and we would have had only 36 days. That is not

enough time for people to understand what has happened nor for the opposition parties to prepare.

Andre Ouellet was appointed chairman of Canada Post. His salary has nicely increased from what it was in the House of Commons. It is now somewhere between $128,000 and $160,000.

The point I want to make is that the person could have been appointed one day and the byelection could have been announced at that time, with only 36 days rather than 47 days to prepare. Some of the information in terms of salary is relevant in that we can see how there is such a desire for people to leave the salary or the position of member of Parliament or minister to go to other Liberal havens that are created for respective members of Parliament. I am sure that many have their eyes on such plumbs.

There have been other instances where a byelection was created. Roy MacLaren went to the position of high commissioner in the United Kingdom. William Rompkey and Shirley Maheu became senators. In every one of those situations, along with the example I gave earlier with regard to the Deputy Prime Minister, the person could have resigned his or her seat in this assembly and immediately an announcement of a byelection could have been made.

Under the legislation which has been brought before us by the Liberal government, the period of time for a byelection will be 36 days down from 47 days. That could have a major adverse effect on the democratic process in the preparation for the respective byelection. It would be unfair to the people who have to select the next candidate to sit as a member of Parliament.

The government should reconsider its position with regard to no freeze period of 30 days. If we could possibly reach a compromise, going back to the 47 days which is currently in the legislation, that would even be some recognition by the government that the period of time for a byelection must be longer than the minimum 36 day period which exists in the legislation being presented to us at this time.

I hope the government will reconsider its position and look at something different. Thirty-six days is just not fair in terms of good preparation for a byelection. A freeze of 30 days would be best but if we could agree to some kind of compromise at 47 days in an amendment to the legislation, I think it would meet some of the concerns we have on this side of the House.

(1540)

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to that of the other members of this House in the debate on the amendment proposal by the Reform Party.

The arguments put forward by the member before me are clearly neither very logical, nor plausible nor of much value to democracy in Canada or Quebec.

I am, however, surprised at the amount of time spent in this House-an hour, an hour and one quarter-discussing an amendment that should be unanimously approved and be self-evident. The federal Liberal government should be automatically interested, in my opinion, in such a claim, which would serve well all Canadians, all political parties and, consequently, democracy in Canada.

However, I am not surprised by the arrogance of the Liberals, yet again, in failing to listen to our arguments and to try to find a way through compromise for all members of Parliament to come up with a better electoral act, which would serve all political parties and therefore all Canadians and Quebecers.

I am surprised that they are preparing to reform the electoral act in disregard of principles established in all western democracies for the past 50 years. Is it, for example, common practice for the date of an election to be set at the whim of a Prime Minister? Is that common practice in a democracy? Is there anywhere in the world where this behaviour is permitted?

The first reform proposed by the government ought to have been: ``Every four or five years, we will have a vote on the first Monday or first Sunday of November or October''. The month does not matter, what counts is a set date for elections. This I think would be the reform Canadians and Quebecers would appreciate the most.

It is also out of the ordinary for the date to be set, when a seat becomes vacant through a member's resignation or death, at the Prime Minister's pleasure and not through a consensus of all parties reached through consultation or, simply, 60 or 90 days after the departure or death of a member.

It seems to me that we should have a date, as they have in most European countries, a predetermined date for the general elections; and a dateline for byelections after the incumbent's departure, instead of the Prime Minister having the inside track through picking and choosing the election date.

As a matter of fact, since the beginning of the century, the Liberal Party has always acted in its own best interests with regard to general elections in Canada. This century, it has been in power for 60 or 70 years out of 90. It has repeatedly refused to pass legislation in keeping with that of major western democracies, preferring to hang on to its archaic privileges and to use them gradually so as to keep the advantage whenever an election is called.

This fat cat party is completely out of touch with Canadian reality; it has no regard for democracy in action at election time. What matters to the Liberal Party is to seize power. What matters is

to stay in power, and anything goes, including handing out plums to party supporters, ministers handing out discretionary contracts to whoever best served not society, not the government or citizens as a whole, but the Liberal Party.

(1545)

When the former Minister of National Defence hands out a $75,000 discretionary contract for a little survey that was never conducted and never will be, because it was awarded to a party treasurer, you get the picture. And this man was one of the heavy weights on the government's front benches. What did the Prime Minister do? He applauded the handing out of these discretionary contracts to friends of the party.

In the meantime the minister's wife was patronage adviser to the Prime Minister. Imagine the racket this will lead to, to raise funds, collect election funds, organize the next elections, flout democracy. And who cares about setting a date? Whenever the polls are favourable, the government will pick a date and try to rout the opposition. That has been the typical attitude of the Liberal Party since the beginning of the century. If anything, this bill shows that this party intends to maintain democracy in Canada by perpetuating that attitude.

I mentioned the former defense minister, but let us speak about the former heritage minister. One month after the election, she invited 20 persons to a small private cocktail party for $2,000 each, thus collecting $40,000 for the event. In the following months she granted a dozen of these people discretionary research contracts the likes of which we have never seen and will never see again. She used public funds to reward people who contributed financially to her political party and to her own election. This is what the minister did. How did the Prime Minister react? He stood up and applauded. That is the vision of the Liberal Party for you.

A reform like this one should be discussed among Canadians and Quebecers, in both our countries, since it has an impact on the future of democracy in this House, and there should be broader consultations. But what does the government do? It gags us. It uses parliamentary procedures to limit debate so it can rush this bill through and be free to call the next election whenever it pleases.

With a small but important amendment like the one proposed by the Reform Party, which members of the Bloc support, we are saying there is at least one amendment we are submitting to prevent them from repeating what they did in the byelection held six months ago, which everybody criticized.

That byelection led to the squandering of $100,000 for no reason at all except that the member wanted to be reconfirmed; it was just a big show. So, the Deputy Prime Minister used public funds to look good and, to make sure she would be elected, she limited the number of days and quickly announced an election to throw the other political parties off balance.

She should have had a deadline, as proposed by Reform members. But I would go further than what Reform members are proposing. Each time there is a byelection, it should be announced on a fixed date, that is, the day after the resignation. It would always be the same number of days, whether 60 or 90, so that each party knows when to expect an election.

But once again, the Liberal Party prefers to hide. The Liberal Party will try to cheat again. It is used to depend on such schemes for its survival. This is what the Liberal Party is, a party of schemers.

We could also say many other things about that party that talks out of both sides of its mouth. That party says one thing during the election campaign and another when elected. The members of that party do not give a damn about the promises they made about the GST or the Constitution.

I would say the Liberal Party's motto, when campaigning, is: ``We are never too poor not to make promises''. So the Liberals promise anything and, when in office, they forget their promises, telling themselves that they will certainly fool the people in the last six months by giving out grants, thinking that people will not remember anything.

In a big convention where they will get people together, they will give them free food and drinks, have a big party and get applauded for keeping 87 per cent of their promises. They will dare put on another big media event.

(1550)

We know quite well that the Liberal Party's main promises have never been kept. The Liberal Party's distinctive feature is indeed to govern with the objective of remaining in office and-as the old people back home would say-to grease its friends' palms. This reform is a very small one. The amendment that is proposed to us could at least limit the damage.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is important for me to get on the record concerning what is happening here today and to talk about some of the very reasoned amendments the Reform Party has put forward. I do not think there is anything here that is out in left or right field. Very serious ideas have been put forward by our party to try to improve this bill.

We hope the government is, even at this late hour, considering some of our proposals that we think would make the elections act better. They would also help all Canadians believe, understand and hope that the government is concerned about consensus and

consultation on something as important and non-partisan as the elections act.

I hope the government will consider and listen both here and in committee to the proposals we have brought forward. I think they have a lot of merit to them.

It is disappointing that the government uses time allocation at its first opportunity to push the bill through very quickly. Since it seems to be intent on doing that, it is really unfortunate because this type of legislation should be built on consultation, co-operation and an all-party consensus.

Therefore, first of all I have to voice my displeasure and concern that time allocation is being used again in the House. It is almost like the New York stock market; every day is a new record around here for the number of times the government has used time allocation. It has certainly been used far more than it was used under Mulroney. It is used routinely to put measures through the House when good planning could have obviated the necessity.

Mr. Kingsley, the chief electoral officer, brought forward this report back in March. It has been available to the House for months and months. Instead, it is dealing with the legislation at the 11th hour. It has to be rammed through in two days or else. It has to go to the Senate and be rammed through there and it has to come back.

The government has had this report from Mr. Kingsley for six or eight months. That is just poor House management. I do not know what the deputy House leader has to do with that, but he should take note that it should not be necessary to routinely use time allocation in the House.

Just two weeks ago we debated the speech from the throne because we had nothing else to talk about. Instead of debating issues of the day and having ample time to do it, we reverted back to the speech from the throne. Everybody droned on about something that is eight or ten months old that nobody cared about and there was no issue at hand, instead of debating important legislation. That is poor management and a disrespect to the House and to the work of members of Parliament.

Obviously I cannot restate that again except to say that it is very disappointing and very discouraging to those of us who thought that we would have ample time to debate serious subjects like this.

On the particular motion, there is some good logic why there should be notice given for byelection dates. The hon. member for Lethbridge, a man with as much experience in parliamentary affairs as the Prime Minister and with as many years in public office as anyone in the House, has pointed out the obvious need for fairness toward opposition and government parties alike.

The proposal is that opposition parties should be given notice of any byelection that may be coming up. It should not be dropped out of the blue. The opposition party does not have the inside track that the government has when it decides to choose its byelection dates.

(1555 )

If the number of days in the writ period are to be shortened and if someone resigns on the government side-of course this is well discussed behind the scenes and the government decides on a date-the members on the opposition side do not know it is coming. All of a sudden someone has been promoted to heaven, or the other place, as they like to call it here. They find they have a job for life and all the perks that go with that. I do not agree with that but it is another issue for another day.

It is particularly disturbing if it happens to be in a riding where opposition parties do not see it coming. Suddenly they find themselves scrambling to make up ground with only a 36-day period to do so. For example, a candidate may not have been chosen, or a war chest put together to fight that election. Sometimes a party's constitution requires several days' notice to get things up and running. It is very difficult for an opposition party to mount the campaign it should and which democracy demands. It should be a fair and unbiased election period.

I hope the government will listen to the amendment. Reform has put forward a couple of ideas. First, it should be a minimum 30-day period before the byelection could be held. Obviously that gives everybody the same writ period but at least everybody gets a little bit of notice. It has been Reform's longstanding belief that a byelection should be held a maximum of six months after a seat becomes vacant.

The way it is right the Prime Minister must call a byelection but he does not have to call it for six months. He has a year after that to call it. There could be people without representation in the House of Commons for 18 months. We have seen it happen before where a byelection is put off and put off. That is unfortunate for the democratic process where people are clamouring for a representative who no longer exists to do something for them in Parliament and they do not have that person there for them.

To be fair to the political parties there should be a 30-day waiting period if we are going to have a 36-day writ. A 30-day waiting period is the least we could ask for. I would hope the government would consider a six-month maximum so that people in this country are not without representatives for longer than six months. Surely six months is enough time to organize a byelection. If it can be done in 36 days surely it can be done in six months. Let us not play politics with the people's right to be represented. Let us let them have a seat here in the House and put a six month maximum on it.

There is a realm of reforms that could be considered in the whole elections act. Some are not covered here. Reform of course made quite a play for fixed election dates. The reason for that was so the government does not get the inside track, does not have an advantage that opposition parties do not have available to them. That includes many things, everything from contributions, to tax deductibility of the same and so on. There are many things that could still be and maybe should still be considered by the government in the months ahead.

On this motion I appeal to its sense of fairness. I hope the government has been listening to these debates and will look at what are very cogent arguments. We are trying to be reasonable and fair. From a majority government's point of view it is very important that it is fair because obviously it can ram through anything it wants.

I appeal to the government, its sense of fairness, to come our way on this one. Give us some of what we are asking in a sense of fairness. Perhaps then this time allocation pill which has been a very difficult one to swallow, will be somewhat easier to take if we see the government is serious about consultation, debate and compromise.

(1600)

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we debate today this bill on which, unfortunately, time allocation has been imposed at the final stage.

For our constituents who may be watching or listening in, a time allocation motion is a gag motion used by the government to preclude the opposition and the third party from using the time normally allocated to them in a parliamentary democracy to provide the people of Canada with information about the important issue of election organization, and party financing in particular.

I will address this first group of motions, stressing that, in our opinion, in byelections, the electoral period should remain 47 days. I will get right to the point, which is that we need enough time to raise public funds for byelections. I might add supporting arguments like the fact that some ridings cover very large areas. It is true in Quebec and other provinces. In fact, some ridings will be even larger come January because of the new electoral boundaries coming into effect. And to run a proper campaign worthy of being called democratic, more time is needed, given that the parties' information campaign cannot play the same role in a byelection as in a general election.

Coming back to the first point on my list, public financing, I can tell you that, as a matter of general policy, the federal government, the Liberal government, should have the courage to suggest public funding of political parties to Canadians. This is a proposal the Parti Quebecois and the Quebec premier had the courage to make to Quebecers in 1977-it was in fact the very first act passed by the PQ government-and one they are still congratulating themselves for. I might add that even the Quebec Liberal Party was revitalized by having to go door to door in an effort to raise funds other than large corporate donations, which is the whole point.

What does public financing of political parties mean? It means that political parties must not rely on large corporations for which donations of $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 are no big deal, especially when such donations mean that citizens whose interests run counter to those of these large corporations systematically find themselves at a disadvantage.

Indeed, the fact that the federal Liberal government did not include a clause providing for public funding of political parties flies in the face of the democratic principle ``one person, one vote'', each vote carrying the same weight in deciding the results of the election and giving all citizens the same influence on their members and their government.

Basically, what the federal government is telling us is that it plans to continue to seek donations from these major sources of capital. It plans to remain under their influence. We will continue to be influenced by these major financial backers.

(1605)

Of course, businesses have interests and these interests are often jobs. However, their influence is already strong enough without having political parties totally surrender to these groups, whose interests are not those of the general public.

The Liberal Party meant to be liberal, in the broad sense of the term. However, it is rather conservative, if not very conservative, regarding this issue. What it is doing will tarnish and even undermine the real efforts made by candidates and by teams in every riding, when confronted to other teams and candidates who do not reject such funding.

The Bloc Quebecois is very proud of the fact that it got 54 candidates elected in Quebec, including a record number who got a majority of the total number of votes. It just so happens that the Bloc Quebecois unilaterally pledged to fund its campaign based on the Quebec legislation.

I know that, in other provinces, some candidates would really like to get elected with the concrete support of ordinary citizens, of people who contribute $5, $20 or, when they can afford to do so, $100 to exert their democratic influence. Indeed, I have often had discussions with members from the other side who would love to renew the democratic source of their funding. On this issue, no one from the other side can look at us in the eyes and say: ``We are not influenced by major financial backers''. No one can do that.

To be sure, we could, if we wanted, find government decisions that have been influenced not by citizens who voted according to a democratic process, not by organizations that invested time and effort in the riding, but by financial backers who went over everybody's head, who had easy access to ministers, and who were able to send the necessary signals to make sure their position was the one that prevailed.

You might wonder why we, the Bloc, wish the Canadian federation would improve its democracy. I am asking that question in front of you because the Canadian people deserves to have a system that works according to democratic rules rather than a system that pretends to give everyone a vote but that, actually, creates the conditions to allow a team to get in power and afterwards to act only according to the interests of major players who remain hidden while the electoral process goes on.

It is all the more so in the case of a byelection, when we need time to go about collecting funds. We of the Bloc, in particular, will continue to do this.

(1610)

We want to have the time to do it. It might be useless for us to hope so, but we continue to hope that the voices will be so loud and so numerous on the government side that the government will end up adopting this practice, which is a minimum in a democracy.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ) moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-63, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 3 with the following:

``she is domiciled and to vote at the''

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-63 be amended, in Clause 12, by replacing line 41 on page 4 with the following:

``referred to in subparagraph 71.011(a)(ii) or (iii). The''

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 10 the following:

``71.011(1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall endeavour to conclude agreements with provinces and territories that maintain permanent lists of electors and the agreements shall provide for the use of such lists by the Chief Electoral Officer.

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where the Chief Electoral Officer has entered into an agreement under subsection (1) for the use of a permanent list of electors, the Chief Electoral Officer shall, for the purposes of holding an election, use any lists obtained under such an agreement.''

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-63 be amended, in Clause 22

(a) by replacing line 32 on page 10 with the following:

``tion,''

(b) by replacing line 3 on page 11 with the following:

``Electors, or''

(c) by adding after line 3 on page 11 the following:

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-63, in Clause 22, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 38 on page 11.

We are giving the government the opportunity to flesh out the proposition it made following the referendum held on October 30, 1995. The government passed in this House a resolution to recognize in principle the distinctiveness of Quebec with regard to language, culture and civil law.

With the notion of ``domicile'', we are addressing the third characteristic of the distinct society of Quebec, since this is a civil law notion. In Quebec, we usually define ``domicile'' as the place where the voters have hearth and home, that is where they ordinarily reside.

(1615)

However, the elections legislation does not use this civil law notion. It seems to me that we need to be consistent, here. Since the government took upon itself to recognize the distinctiveness of

Quebec right after the referendum, it could show it in some concrete way.

Since property and civil rights are defined in the British North America Act, 1867 as a provincial area of jurisdiction, pursuant to section 92(13), it would only be reasonable, at least where Quebec is concerned, since it availed itself of these provisions to develop its own Civil Code, that the notion of ``domicile'' be used as an eligibility requirement for voters, along with their age. Otherwise, we end up with nothing but wishful thinking expressed in November 1995 without any repercussions.

When drafting a bill for two nations that vote under a unique set of rules of law with different civil law principles, we must take into account the Canadian duality between Quebec's civil law and the common law of the English provinces, where the concept of main residence is very important.

Why impose concepts of common law to a province, which has had a civil law tradition since Confederation and even before, since Quebec's civil code, must I add, was approved by the Parliament of a united Canada the year before the federation was born in 1867?

Our civil code goes back to 1866. It was amended several times since, especially concerning matrimonial regimes. There were the great reforms of 1930-31 following the Dorion Report; the 1964 reforms concerning the community of property, where the husband, although he is the administrator of the community, had to have the consent of his spouse to continue administering the community, at least in general; and the 1970 reform of the matrimonial regimes provided for in the civil code.

From then on, the partnership of acquests became the legal regime in the civil code for spouses without a marriage contract. There were also, in the early 1980s, Bill 89, which was passed by the National Assembly, and the Loi sur le patrimoine familial, which was passed in the late 1980s. This new civil code maintains of course the general principles of French law which has always applied in Quebec.

So why would the government impose upon us legislation which is foreign to us under section 92(13)? Why would it force us to accept terms which have no basis in our legal system? The Fathers of Confederation recognized, in 1867, that Quebec was really a distinct society with regard to its civil law. That did not happen in October of November 1995. This duality in terms of civil law was recognized in 1867 in the founding legislation. Our electoral law must respect that.

We do not need an electoral law which uses the same words from coast to coast for the whole Dominion. The Dominion, in terms of civil law, is comprised of nine provinces that have a common law system and one province that has a civil law tradition, each system having its own merits, of course. We will not debate this any further. That was the first motion brought forward by the official opposition.

The second motion is Motion No. 11. It is just a little strange that we should have had to propose this amendment. This provision should have been in the bill from the outset. In fact, MotionsNos. 12 and 13 brought forward by the Reform Party, which are in the same group, essentially call for the same thing, namely that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada be allowed to use provincial lists.

The same taxpayers pay for the lists of electors in the provinces, where the qualifications of electors are exactly the same, where the basic notions to have the right to vote are exactly the same, the notion of universal suffrage being applied everywhere in Canada. Yet, the bill before us today does not allow the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada to use provincial lists if the enumeration was conducted more than 12 months before the date on which such lists would be used.

(1620)

In other words, in this connection, the bill could have said that Canada's chief electoral officer is not authorized to use Quebec's list, because the census used to create it was held in September 1995. The census used to create it will run out next May 1, at which time the list will be published, and the list will be as good as possible.

It will therefore be more than 12 months. It is already more than 12 months. The federal government will not be able to use this list, put together at a cost of several million dollars, because the legislator does not wish to recognize the quality of the list drawn up by Quebec's director general of elections. The government does not wish to assume its responsibilities with respect to this work and to legislation that is more forward looking than the federal legislation.

They tell us: ``We have not checked the validity of the lists drawn up by Quebec. Quebec's lists are prepared for different polling divisions''. These are logistical problems, computer problems.

If Quebec is able to use its permanent list for municipal elections in which the polling divisions are completely different, why is it not possible to use Quebec's provincial list for a federal election in which polling divisions are larger?

Let the computer experts work it out, but as a declaration of principle, I think it obvious that, in the interests of harmony, and also of economy, of the public money for which we are all accountable to our constituents, the broadest possible use of provincial lists should be permitted. I am not speaking only of Quebec's list. It could be Alberta's, or Prince Edward Island's, drawn up with the assistance of Elections Canada on top of that. It is rather strange to see electoral lists drawn up by Elections Canada

excluded from use in a federal election under the pretext that more than 12 months may have gone by.

The correction proposed in Bill C-63 at the committee stage is only a partial one, not allowing the use of the Quebec list of electors. In other words, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada will not be able to use the Quebec list of electors for the election of 75 members of this House.

I respectfully submit that the Bloc Quebecois amendment and the Reform Party amendment strongly resemble each other. Ours is more binding on the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, in that it requires him to attempt to conclude an agreement with the Director General of Elections of Quebec, whereas the Reform amendment does not go quite as far, requiring the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada to check that the provincial voter's register is adequate. If it is found to be adequate, he ought then to make use of it.

I sense that the hon. member for Calgary West is dying to explain his amendment. I shall therefore yield the floor to him, with your permission, Mr. Speaker.

[English]

Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on Group No. 5 of the report stage motions relative to Bill C-63. As the hon. member for Bellechasse has noted, there are five motions in this group, three presented by the Reform Party and two by the Bloc Quebecois. They concern three subject matters, two of which I was going to address quickly but I think I will spend a bit of time on the first one, given some of the remarks by the hon. member for Bellechasse.

Motion No. 7 presented by the Bloc Quebecois is a very interesting one. It simply changes the wording in a particular section from ``is ordinarily resident'' to ``is domiciled''. As the member explained very well, this is a switch from terminology used in common law to terminology used in the Quebec civil code. At the same time I point to the change away from the terminology that is generally used in the Canada Elections Act, not just in this section but in other sections and also in the general communications of Elections Canada, to terminology more specific to the Quebec elections organization. It is a very interesting proposal and one which on the surface seems fairly trivial. We would tend to oppose it because we believe in keeping the terminology the way it is.

(1625)

My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois made an interesting observation and I hope that Liberal members were listening to his intervention. He said that the change which he is seeking is consistent with the government's notion of the distinct society clause which was passed through the House late last year. It is important because this motion is really the tip of the iceberg. There are other motions, which I am sure we will have a chance to discuss today, in which the Bloc Quebecois is suggesting that large sections of elections law and the referendum act in Quebec would supersede, or give guidance to or even in the case of the one in question, have veto over federal legislation.

This may well be an accurate interpretation of the wording of the distinct society motion that this Parliament passed, to which the Reform Party was very much opposed. It shows the can of worms that the motion is opening.

Frankly, on a point like this, a reasonable accommodation could be made. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that where notions are virtually identical, in the English version of a federal law we could use common law terminology and in the French version we could use the civil code terminology. As long as the notions are more or less the same that would not create a problem.

However the member for Bellechasse, by proposing this motion and by justifying it the way he has, has raised the broader issue that is raised by the distinct society clause, that is, the idea that there would be a comprehensive special status for Quebec and that it would involve, even on something as important as elections law, a completely different relationship between the Government of Quebec and the Quebec elections office and the Government of Canada and the Canada elections office.

That is instructive because the distinct society clause has potential problems. The clause as passed by this House was very broad in application. It was worded very broadly.

The Reform Party-myself and the leader of the Reform Party-proposed an amendment to that motion which would have made it clear that this particular motion did not give additional powers to the Government of Quebec, did not circumscribe charter rights and did not grant any kind of status to Quebec which would allow it to claim sovereignty under international law. We proposed that in an amendment and it was rejected by the government.

Although I oppose this motion, the hon. member for Bellechasse has made a point which is consistent with the policy of the government. That is why the government should be rethinking its policy. I suspect that some day somebody will take these matters to court to suggest that the distinct society resolution has a wider impact on federal law than the government was previously willing to admit.

Those are my comments on Motion No. 7. I will move on to some of the motions which the Reform Party has proposed.

Motion No. 13 would delete from Bill C-63 the provision which would provide the voters list annually to sitting members of Parliament and registered political parties. We do not believe that is in the interests of voters nor is it necessary. We have said all along that in creating a register it should only have information which is either necessary or highly relevant and it should only be used for the explicit purposes for which it was created. In this case that is the holding of a federal general election or alternatively, the holding of other elections in other parts of the country where there

is co-operation with provincial, municipal and school board elections authorities.

(1630 )

This particular provision in the bill goes entirely against that. This provision basically says that the purpose of a register is not just for elections but for the ongoing political use by registered parties and sitting members of Parliament. It seems to me that is not appropriate. Certainly under the act there are uses for which this list is prescribed, but if there is wide circulation of these lists, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they will be used for all kinds of purposes, both political and non-political.

An additional concern is why should this additional information be provided to incumbents? In several cases when we had discussions in committee-and I will not quote members by name because these were in camera discussions-we repeatedly raised our concerns with several elements of Bill C-63. A number of members repeatedly said that as an incumbent this information was useful to them which seemed to us, in the case of particular MPs and in the case of the government, to be missing the point.

The point is that the purpose of an elections list is not to provide proprietary information or give advantages to incumbents. That is not the purpose. In Reform's view, the provision of a list out of the register to MPs or to registered political parties every year is improper. That is not the purpose of the list.

The permanent register should help to provide lists for the purposes of elections at all levels of government across the country, not to political parties and not to MPs. Sitting MPs and political parties already have some of this data from previous elections and they can get it elsewhere. The purpose of this list is not for their general political marketing activities. It is important to make that point.

As the member for Bellechasse mentioned, both he and I have proposed motions dealing with a very similar subject. Reform Motions No. 8 and No. 12 and Bloc Motion No. 11 would allow the chief electoral officer of Canada to use elections lists from other registers that may exist in the country for the immediate purposes of avoiding a pre-election enumeration across the country which would be very costly.

I could go on at some length on this point. The particular approach in implementing this bill, having a pre-election enumeration before the next election to implement the shortened electoral period, is a quick way to start the register but potentially it is very expensive. The Reform Party has had some concerns about this. We suggested in committee that the government find ways of using recent enumerations or other electoral records as a way of avoiding a coast to coast enumeration.

The government did agree to some amendments in committee which would require the chief electoral officer to use lists where the enumeration has been conducted within the last year. In the case of Alberta and Prince Edward Island we will probably not be having pre-election enumerations in those provinces. There is an enumeration under way in Alberta as we speak. That represents a saving.

However the big provinces that are not captured by that amendment are Quebec and British Columbia. Quebec and British Columbia are developing permanent voters registers. The one in B.C. is in place and the one in Quebec will be in place soon. If they could be used prior to the next election for the purposes of assembling the register, it would obviously save an enormous amount of money. These are the second and third largest provinces. Together we are talking about roughly one-third of all the ridings in the country. It would be a very significant adjustment if this could be made.

All the Reform Party and Bloc amendments would allow would be for the chief electoral officer to have the option of using those lists. That option is not provided in the bill now. It is true, as many on the government side have pointed out, that there are some technical problems with incorporating these lists. It is also true that in the time frame the government has given itself, which is the end of April, it would be impossible to use those lists, certainly in the case of Quebec.

(1635)

What that tells us is that the government should be rethinking this approach. It should be looking at an approach which at least allows these lists to be used in the first place by the chief electoral officer and then looking at the time line, not bringing this system in until later in the year in a way that would allow the technical obstacles to be overcome. The cost saving would be absolutely enormous.

It would also be far more consistent with the scenarios that were originally laid out before the procedure and House affairs committee when draft legislation on this subject was first reviewed. It is important to point out that when the government originally came to the Reform Party and to the other opposition parties with the proposal for a 36 day campaign, the scenarios it laid out did not foresee the implementation of a 36 day campaign and a permanent register until at least a year after the legislation had been adopted.

The scenario presented to us in this bill came about at the last minute. We only became aware of it after the bill was tabled in the House. The scenario here is very different from the scenario we agreed to.

I understand why the government wants to hurry this process. However, in hurrying this process and with the particular constraints it has provided for itself, the government has created a situation where the implementation will actually be significantly more costly at the outset rather than saving money. We know there are savings in the long run but we can minimize the initial costs by proceeding in a way that captures every province that can be captured. Obviously if we do it in April we will not capture British Columbia or Quebec. If we do it later, we have that option.

In any case, the bill should be amended so that the chief electoral officer at least has the option of considering usage of those lists if circumstances are fortuitous for him.

The Bloc Quebecois amendment differs from our amendment in one respect which I think was already mentioned by the hon. member for Bellechasse. The difference is that the Bloc amendment has a somewhat more constraining tone to it on the chief electoral officer than ours. I believe that to be true.

We understand the constraints of the chief electoral officer. He wants to make sure that we pursue implementation of the register with a minimum of risk to the integrity of the voting process and the integrity of the compilation process. We understand that is the case and we support him in that. Therefore, we want to give him a great deal of latitude on this and the Bloc wants to give a little less. Our position on this is somewhat more moderate and I would say in concluding it is because we are such a moderate party at heart.

[Translation]

Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act, at the report stage and more specifically to Group No. 5 and Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse.

I fully support his motion to the effect that there should be an endeavour to conclude agreements between the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and his provincial counterparts, and especially with Quebec's director general of elections, on the use of lists of electors.

I shall, if I may, add some general comments on this bill. This is my first chance to speak in the debate on Bill C-63.

The bill will make it possible to establish a permanent register of electors and would set the minimum duration of a federal election campaign at 36 days. The computerized register of electors will be established from information collected by means of an enumeration held outside of an electoral period, probably in the spring of 1997.

(1640)

A preliminary list will be distributed within five days of issuing the writ for the next election. The lists will be used in other, subsequent consultations. The election campaign will therefore last a minimum of 36 days instead of 47, which is the case today.

Let us take a brief look at the history of the federal electoral legislation we are about to amend. On October 27, 1964, the federal government appointed an advisory committee headed by Alphonse Barbeau, with a mandate to inquire into the limitation and control of election expenses incurred during federal elections.

In its report, the Barbeau committee recommended as follows: one, political parties should be legally recognized; two, a degree of financial equality should be established among candidates and among political parties; three, an effort should be made to increase public participation in politics through tax concessions to donors; four, costs of election campaigns should be reduced, by shortening the campaign period, by placing limitations on expenditures by candidates and parties, and by prohibiting the payment of poll workers on election day; five, public confidence in political financing should be strengthened, by requiring candidates and parties to disclose their incomes and expenditures; six, a registry should be established to audit and publish the financial reports required, and to enforce the provisions of the proposed ``Election and Political Finances Act''; seven, miscellaneous amendments to broadcasting legislation should be enacted to improve the political communications field.

These recommendations were implemented at the time of the reform of the electoral act in 1974, which included the following basic principles: first, a limitation of candidates' expenses; second, the publication of contributions to and the expenses of all political parties; third, the encouragement of individuals' participation through the according of tax credits for political contributions and government funding of political parties. These fundamental principles continue to underlie the federal electoral act and remain in effect.

At the end of the 1980s, the Conservative government set up the Lortie commission to review the Canada Elections Act. In its 1991 report, the commission refused to go along with the real and truly democratic funding of political parties.

Current federal regulations do not cover nomination campaigns, leadership campaigns, candidates' political activities prior to elections, party trust funds, most riding association activities and the activities of interest groups during campaigns.

Big business is the major contributor to the traditional political parties and has the greatest influence on government.

I have here a list of contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada's campaign fund in 1993. The list of contributors includes all the major companies and banks in Canada. The Bank of Montreal, for example, contributed $94,000; the Royal Bank, $88,000; the Toronto Dominion Bank, $80,000; SCN-Lavalin, $73,000; Bombardier, $49,994; Labatt, $62,000; Air Canada, $30,000; Nova Corporation of Alberta, $50,000, and so forth.

(1645)

This really shows the influence of companies on policies of a government, of a political party. Today, the Liberal Party is funded in large part by big business, by the major banks, in Canada, and cannot therefore act in the interests of ordinary people, being too much influenced already by these political contributions.

Passed in 1977, under Premier René Lévesque, the Quebec Elections Bill provides that only an individual, not a company, can make a contribution. This legislation eliminates the political influence that some vested interest groups could have. Obviously, the objectives of those vested interest groups are more to change the thrust of public policy than to allow a political party whose ideology is close to that of a member of those groups to get into power, to stay in power.

The Quebec Elections Bill limits contributions to $3,000 per year, per elector. It is the director general of elections of Quebec who monitors the election expenses of political parties. Also, the official representative of each party must file a yearly financial report with the director general. This report is in the public domain.

Bill C-63 draws on the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, that is the Lortie Commission. This bill also draws on the recommendations of the chief electoral officer of Canada.

The permanent list of electors will abolish the need for the door to door census we previously had to do before each election. Thanks to that list, and the shorter electoral period, the country will save $30 million on each election.

Finally I would like to say I condemn the government for resorting to patronage when dealing with the election of the returning officers. Nearly all the officers have been replaced in Quebec, even though the chief electoral officer had said some of the returning officers should stay.

Once again, I suggest that these returning officers should be appointed by the chief electoral officer, following a competition, just like public servants. For all those reasons, I have some great reservations about Bill C-63 and I think I will vote against it.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): 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.

(1650)

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.

(1655 )

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.

(1700)

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to congratulate the Bloc Quebecois member, the member for Bellechasse, for his excellent job on the committee that reviewed the bill.

I think the member for Bellechasse did his very best to improve the bill, to bring it up to par with the elections bill we have had in Quebec for several years now, which provides for a fairer and level playing field when election time comes around.

The member for Bellechasse attempted to show that the time had come for the government to modernize this act. The time had come to have a less costly act, an act putting a limit on the political

influence some pressure groups have on the government. The time had come-I would like everyone to listen because this is very important-for the government to put a ceiling on contributions. The time had come to demand more transparency. Unfortunately, we see none of that in the bill.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government opposite made no change whatsoever. As always, it has hung on to its bad old habits. This means that corporations will still be allowed to contribute thousands of dollars. Pressure groups will also be allowed to contribute money. After the elections, they will have their hands tied, as is usually the case in these parts.

There is this old saying the Bloc Quebecois likes to quote: ``Tell me who is funding you and I will tell you who you work for''. Unfortunately when a company contributes, as mentioned earlier-the member for Bourassa listed the companies that contributed $50,000 and $60,000 to the Liberal government opposite-obviously it expects something in return. This might be why, from time to time, we end up with policies which make no sense whatsoever.

This might be why the government adopts policies benefitting pressure groups, as was clearly the case with the Pearson deal. Regularly, in this place, we ask ourselves the following question: ``What does it mean when the government proposes such things?'' Perhaps we should check to see if a stockholder or a person who holds some position in the lobby group has given or is still giving large amounts of money to the Liberal government so that it can govern the way that group wishes. This is rather appalling in a democratic system.

The government had an opportunity to bring about some changes in this regard, to put more transparency in this. But no, it failed again. The government had an opportunity to give some meaning to a certain motion on distinct society that was passed in this House, and, in that piece of legislation, to give Quebec some additional powers.

I know that, in the group of motions we are now examining, there is the whole issue of ``residence'' and ``domicile''. For the information of the Speaker and our viewers, I will read the motion that was tabled on November 29, 1995 by the Prime Minister himself. We are about to celebrate the first anniversary of that motion. It will not be a celebration for us, Quebecers, but only a date to forget as quickly as possible. I want you to be aware that, since that date, November 29, 1995, nothing has changed. The Liberal government is not even able to draft a piece of legislation that would be quite easy to prepare to give more power to Quebec, in connection with the motion that was passed.

That motion read as follows:

Whereas the People of Quebec have expressed the desire for recognition of Quebec's distinct society;

(1) the House recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada;

(2) the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;

(3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;

(4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.

This means that in a piece of legislation similar to the one before us, this motion was worth something. If the government motion tabled on November 29, 1995, meant anything, some of its key elements should be reflected in Bill C-63 we are now debating. Most importantly, if Quebec's distinct status was indeed recognized, it would have been recognized in this bill by providing, among other things, for a minimum 25 per cent representation for Quebec, but there is no such thing in there.

As for the specific group of motions we are considering, its effect on the bill would be to explicitly recognize the fact that, in civil law, the concept of residence has no meaning. The bill would state that, in Quebec, the place of residence would be referred to as suggested by the hon. member for Bellechasse in his proposed amendment. The words ``she is ordinarily resident'' could be replaced with ``she is domiciled and to vote at the'' local polling station. I think this would be a minor change, a very small thing really.

If the government stood by its own position and the motion to recognize Quebec as a distinct society meant anything, the official opposition, represented by a Bloc member, would not have had to impress this upon the government. The government would have automatically acted in accordance with civil law, as clearly stated in the motion, which insists that organizations act this way.

But instead, a very important aspect of Quebec's civil law, the concept of domicile or place of residence, is ignored. I hope the government understands. I hope they will have second thoughts about this amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, although this seldom happens in the House, and eventually decide to vote for the amendment so that the word ``domicile'' can be used, making this the main point to consider in clause 6 of Bill C-63 amending section 53 of the Canada Elections Act.

I could argue on and on about this. I will limit my comments to the group of motions before us, Group No. 5. Another major point is the permanent voters list. To effect savings, why not provide in the bill some mechanism allowing the use of the permanent list

maintained by Quebec and other provinces, as proposed by the hon. member for Bellechasse in Motion No. 11?

Why have federal officials create a whole new list when Quebec already has one. Quebec has paid for this work to be done. I do not accept that it is not up to date. If my information is correct, it will be on May 1. In any case, the federal government will not start work on its own list before April. We could wait for the permanent list from Quebec and other provinces where such a mechanism exists.

Just think of the money we would save. The Minister of Finance is trying to save billions in welfare and unemployment costs. This is an ideal way to save money by capitalizing on work already done, and excellently done as far as Quebec's director general of elections is concerned.

(1710)

Why not accommodate this request from the official opposition? It is very simple, there are only two minor amendments. If the government wanted to be sincere in its sincere approach, and to give effect to certain things it has already passed, it would give in and approve the amendments moved by my colleague from Bellechasse.

[English]

Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak again on amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

In this group of amendments there are two basic principles that we are talking about; first, the principle of utilizing voters lists at the provincial level and permanent lists which are available to us so that we can better identify the constituents who would be on the federal list. The idea here is certainly the cost savings that would come about because of that.

The second principle we are looking at is the matter of whether we should provide voters lists to constituencies on an annual basis. We ask why we should do that.

The Reform Party has moved an amendment saying that there does not seem to be a good purpose and therefore we should eliminate this provision in the act as suggested by the government for annual distribution of updated voters lists to the registered political parties.

In terms of the B.C. and Quebec voters lists that could be available and may be available so that they can be used as the federal list, we should think first of all of the savings that could occur. If we look at the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta and Prince Edward Island, just those four lists, some 45 per cent of Canadian voters would be on a voters list if we used the current lists that are available at the provincial level.

The committee that studied this, and this comes as well from the electoral officer, said that if we had a permanent voters list in Canada we would save something like $14 million. So we are looking at the subsequent election, the one after the one in the spring of 1997, to save $14 million.

If we could use the lists from the provinces of British Columbia, Quebec, Alberta and Prince Edward Island, about 45 per cent of the population of Canada, we could save 45 per cent of $14 million in the upcoming election, in the 1997 election.

We have said a number of times in this House that is most likely when the government is going to call the election. It should tell us about that rather than keep hiding it. It should tell us that in the spring of 1997 there will be an election and then we would all be able to prepare accordingly. There could be a saving over $10 million if those four lists were used.

After a presentation by my colleague from Calgary, the government has agreed to use the lists from Alberta and Prince Edward Island. Now we are saying let us add two more, from British Columbia and Quebec, and do everything we can to make sure those are added to the permanent voters list of Canada. Look at the savings. I think that in itself would merit the support of the House of Commons for the amendment as suggested.

I think that is the strongest argument. The information is available. Why not use it accordingly?

If we look at the other amendment before us in terms of the voters list being distributed annually, I in my greatest imagination cannot understand why the government would want to facilitate the distribution of a voters list annually to all the constituencies in Canada and as well to every registered political party across this nation. What good use is there for that list in the years between one election and the next? Its primary purpose is to list people who are eligible to vote in an election.

(1715)

We all know that during an election period candidates use the list for campaign purposes. That is legitimate. It is used in a variety of creative ways to communicate with voters encouraging them to support one party and not to support the other parties in the race. That is what it is all about.

Candidates have to communicate with the voters in some format. Some candidates have the facility and the time to phone thousands through the voters' lists. During that period the candidate is able to make the calls that are necessary and communicate their attitudes and their ideas. That is for a good and reasonable purpose.

What about in between an election date and the dropping of the subsequent writ? What could happen during that period of time? It is true we could have these election lists available to all political parties. The Reform, Liberals, Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive Conservatives, if they have adequate people to do this, could do mail outs from the lists.

What is the purpose and why would this list be provided at thousands and thousands of dollars in cost? I know from practical experience over the years most of the lists would sit on the shelf and never be used at all. Out of the some 301 seats that will exist in Parliament after the next election, I am sure if one constituency out of the 301 uses the lists in between elections in any practical way or any way that is of value to the constituents that would be a miracle in itself. I do not see that at all.

If a constituency could come up with a good reason to use the list between the election date and the dropping of the next writ then I suggest that rather than produce these lists in a mass way that we should look at an option. The option is that a member, having some desire to use the list annually to communicate with his or her constituents, put money up front and pay the basic cost for the production of that list.

If it costs the Elections Canada office $1,000, $2,000, $5,000 or whatever the cost to produce the list, it should be done at cost. Elections Canada should not make a profit. Then that member should send a cheque to Elections Canada and say why and for what purpose that member would like a list of electors. The member could enclose a cheque for $1,000 or $5,000, whatever is established by Elections Canada. Elections Canada could transfer either the list or software to the member of Parliament at that point. I believe that would be adequate and look after some special need that I cannot think of at the present time. That would certainly serve the purpose.

Failing to amend the legislation in that light, if the government just leaves it as it is at the present where it says every year we turn the crank and an updated list is sent to every constituency in Canada, to me that is not good enough. I would have to vote against that kind of provision in the act. We should deal with the issue now. We should amend it so that no lists are provided between the date of the election and the dropping of the next writ, or we should make a provision in the act whereby a constituency, if necessary, can cite a good reason and purchase the list at cost from Elections Canada. That would satisfy the need of those kinds of persons.

(1720)

Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have been listening with great interest to certain aspects of this debate. It might be helpful to put a few of my points of view on the record, particularly to let my colleagues in the opposition know that there is still some interest in some of the issues they have raised.

Things are not cast in stone. They obviously are not black and white. We are trying to develop a consensus. We continue to welcome the interventions of both opposition parties, particularly by the members who participated in the debate at the committee stage.

In principle I have a great deal of sympathy for the point of view expressed by my colleague from Calgary West relating to the byelection campaign period. There may be some way to make some accommodation on that matter as the days progress. I note that byelections are covered by the Parliament of Canada Act, not this act as my hon. colleague knows. That act is not being debated at the moment.

The motion in the name of my colleague from Bellechasse in this group talks about the concept of domicile. As my hon. colleague knows, the concept of domicile is not found in the Canada Elections Act. The entitlement to vote in a federal election is in part based on the fact of being ordinarily resident in a polling division. The term ordinary resident is fully defined in sections 56 to 62 of the Canada Elections Act.

I was pleased to hear several members opposite say that in principle they supported the establishment of a register. All parties have had a consensus that a register makes a lot of sense for a modern Canadian democracy that is evolving. It is a much more efficient way and a cost effective way. I hope over the course of several electoral events that dozens or tens of millions of dollars will be saved by the establishment of a registry.

I listened with great interest to the comments made by the House leader for the Reform Party. It is important for the record to show that the reason the Alberta and Prince Edward Island lists were considered to be more consistent with this legislation was based on the freshness of information that was coming from both of those electoral districts.

It is important to remember that while the British Columbia and Quebec lists may very well work, unfortunately due to the time frame of when this bill would come into force, presuming it receives approval in the other place, the information that would be on the British Columbia and Quebec lists would not be as fresh. The best information when the officials were at the procedure and House affairs committee was that the quality of the information would be less than perfect.

(1725 )

It was for that reason the government felt that the Alberta list and the Prince Edward Island list would be appropriate. It is not inconsistent to establish a federal registry by using provincial lists. I have agreed with that point of view all along. There can be some significant cost savings at the provincial level and even at the municipal level, depending on which region of the country is able to use the federal registry.

We want to build the first federal register with the most current voter information. This is why we will only use provincial lists that have been completed through a door to door enumeration within the last 12 months of the date of the last federal enumeration.

Therefore, while I understand the points of view that have been raised by my hon. colleagues, for the record I wanted to draw that to everyone's attention.

Motion No. 9, moved my hon. colleague from Bellechasse, makes it mandatory for incarcerated electors to provide their names, sex and date of birth. It is important to acknowledge that in Canada we have a system of voluntary registration. Bill C-63 is based on the principle that electors voluntarily would provide that information. Therefore, there is no mandatory obligation to provide that in the bill. I want to offer that comment to the motion of my hon. colleague.

Motion No. 10 is moved by the hon. member for Calgary West. Once again I want to draw the House's attention to the fact that the privacy commissioner and the chief electoral officer have informed the procedure and House affairs committee that gender information is useful as an administrative identifier for electors who have names that are common to both sexes. Obviously in French and English we can all think of names that may be somewhat confusing from a gender point of view.

It is also important to mention that the privacy commissioner did not see the voluntary collection of privacy information as a significant issue as it relates to gender and did not recommend it.

My hon. colleague from Kootenay East has made a very strong case for that. Again, at this point in the day, I want to acknowledge the points of view that he has raised, particularly as it relates to the security and privacy of women. No one would argue with the member for Kootenay East due to his size or his sex, but other people may feel a little intimidated. However, I want to tell my hon. colleague that we have been listening very carefully and if there are ways that we can consider some accommodation we are still open to it at this point.

The maintenance of the federal registry is something that I believe is also contained in Motions Nos. 12 and 13. The use of the federal list is also contained there. I want to once again remind my hon. colleagues that what we are trying to do with this legislation is to ensure that Canadians have the most modern and most current information before them. The best information, as it has been presented by the officials at Elections Canada, is information that is brought forward on a 12-month basis.

Therefore, it is not to try to prejudice any particular group in the country. I notice that both British Columbia and Quebec would find their lists not as current as Alberta and Prince Edward Island. It was for that reason that the government moved in that direction.

(1730)

I believe that sums up some of the comments I wish to contribute to the debate. I thank my hon. colleagues and ask for their patience as the days move forward on this important matter, amendments to Bill C-63.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, unless I am mistaken, the list in question will not be used for the next election, but for the following one, which is a number of years away, probably seven or so.

The feeling of urgency expressed by the member opposite makes me wonder somewhat. It is as though he wants to justify the fact that election lists made by the provinces, including the state of Quebec, are not being used. The member sounds like he wants to eliminate or avoid the use of these lists when he says that they will not be ready for the next election. However, this is not the issue. This is not the object of the legislation before us. We are talking seven years down the road.

In all fairness, the hon. member opposite should consider using provincial lists to ensure a better use of public moneys. We keep talking about avoiding duplication. Here is an excellent opportunity to do things right, because we have the time to do so. We have several years ahead of us to set up a fair system.

You will agree with me that this is not a list that Quebec will be able to use in the context of a federal election, given that, seven years from now, our province will likely have become a sovereign state. Still, the arguments raised by Reform Party members make sense. Indeed, whether we are talking about the Canada of today or the Canada of tomorrow, it makes sense to make better use of public moneys. Therefore, we should immediately start planning to use provincial lists.

This brings me to make a comment. You will recall that, in Quebec, we experienced certain problems. For example, on a number of occasions, residents from another province voted in Quebec by using their secondary residence, a cottage or what have you, or some other scheme.

If there was only one list and only one source of data within each province, this kind of double residency status that allows a person to vote in two different jurisdictions would no longer exist. I imagine that if these things happen in Quebec with out of the province residents, they must also occur in other provinces.

So, while the issue of a single list is first and foremost a matter of making good use of public moneys, it also ensures having reliable information. With two lists and two sets of data, consistency will be a challenge. But if we have only one list and specified, well identified data sources, a higher level of integrity will be possible, and it will be that much easier to monitor and maintain that integrity in our list.

It is a better solution from all points of view. Not only costs will reduced, but we will also have a better quality list. The process the government party is suggesting has two flaws.

(1735)

Expenses will be duplicated. Surely, we cannot afford to spend money we do not have, especially if expenses are duplicated. Furthermore we will end up with lists whose integrity will never be assured. In fact we are quite certain their integrity will not be adequate. Comparisons will be made between both lists and inconsistencies will remain.

In this House today, we have an opportunity to implement a smarter process that will save taxpayer dollars. The Canadian list will be made up from provincial lists, and the level of integrity will be extremely high.

I repeat that Quebec will probably never have to use such a list, but I think that, at this time, this is what should be done out of respect for taxpayers who pay for government operations. This is a golden opportunity to use cautiously taxpayer dollars, reduce costs, and in the process, get more for our money. Opposition parties are fully playing their role of looking after the public interest.

I cannot understand why the government party seems to think or rather insists that provincial guarantees are inadequate. It is deliberately ignoring better solutions, and refusing co-operation and a better use of taxpayer dollars.

I cannot understand why. It is really strange. You will pardon my persistence, but I will ask once more the government party to reconsider. This list will be used seven years from now. It seems to me we have all the time we need to do things correctly, and I cannot understand why we should not do it. In conclusion, I hope the wisdom that prevails in opposition parties will also prevail in the government party.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question is on Motion No. 7, group 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

[English]

The next question is on Motion No. 8. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[Translation]

The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 12.

The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(1740)

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[English]

The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We will now proceed to Group No. 6.

[Translation]

Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ) moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 23 on page 33 the following new Clause:

``64. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 301:

301.1 Chapter II of Title III of the Quebec Election Act applies to this Act, with such modifications as the circumstances require.''

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 38 the following new Clause:

``86.1. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 331:

331. (1) Before an amendment to this Act is passed, the Governor in Council shall table a draft Bill in the House of Commons.

(2) Within sixty days after the draft Bill is tabled, the Governor in Council shall consult the recognized political parties in the House of Commons.''

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-63, in Clause 87, be amended by deleting lines 5 and 6 on page 39.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-63, in Clause 88, be amended by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 40 with the following:

``88. Section 4 of the Referendum Act is replaced by the following:

4. No proclamation may be issued

(a) when the House of Commons stands dissolved; or

(b) before, or more than forty-five days after, the text of the referendum question has been approved under section 5 or 5.1.

89. Sections 8 and 9 of the Act are repealed.''

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-63, in Clause 89, be amended by replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 40 with the following:

``89. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 5:

5.1 (1) A referendum question shall be approved by a majority of the provinces that includes

(a) Ontario;

(b) Quebec;

(c) British Columbia;

(d) two or more of the Atlantic provinces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined populations of at least fifty per cent of the population of all the Atlantic provinces; and

(e) two or more of the Prairie provinces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined populations of at least fifty per cent of the population of all the Prairie provinces.

(2) In this section,

``Atlantic provinces'' means the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland;

``Prairie provinces'' means the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.''

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 40 the following new Clause:

``91. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 16:

16.1(1) Chapter II of Title III of the Quebec Election Act (financing of political parties) applies to this Act, with such modifications as the circumstances require.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, a reference to ``party'' in the Quebec Election Act shall be read as a reference to ``referendum committee''.''

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-63, in Clause 92, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 40 with the following:

``before it are replaced by the following:

39. (1) The Government of Canada shall not give effect to a vote on a referendum question or take any action whatsoever with respect to that vote unless a majority of the legislatures of the provinces have first given their consent, and this majority shall include

(a) Ontario;

(b) Quebec;

(c) British Columbia;

(d) two or more of the Atlantic provinces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined populations of at least fifty per cent of the population of all the Atlantic provinces; and

(e) two or more of the Prairie provinces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined populations of at least fifty per cent of the population of all the Prairie provinces.

(2) In this section,

``Atlantic provinces'' means the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland;

``Prairie provinces'' means the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.''

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-63 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 40 the following new Clause:

``93. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 39:

39.1(1) The provisions of an Act of a legislature respecting a referendum or referendums prevail over any inconsistent provisions in this Act.

(2) Where the result of a referendum held under an Act of a legislature respecting a referendum or referendums differs from the result of a referendum held under this Act, the result obtained under the Act of the legislature shall prevail.''

If there is one thing we can be sure of when the hon. member for Calgary West addresses a problem, it is that he will ask the real question. There were no false pretence or political dodging when he spoke on the concept of distinct society and on what it could represent.

The first intrinsic notion we refer to when we speak of a distinct society is the one outlined in the 1987 Meech Lake agreement. What was this notion of distinct society? It was a clause that would have been entrenched in the Canadian Constitution affirming the distinct nature of Quebec. This clause in the Constitution would have had precedence over the distribution of powers between the federal government and the provinces. Any interpretation of the Constitution would have taken into account the notion that Quebec is a distinct society.

This has nothing to do with the unfortunate motion mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm and passed by a majority in this House on November 29, 1995, as part of an exercise in wishful thinking on the recognition of distinct society. We see today that even the bill now before us does not reflect the civil law concept of domicile. We must take these things into account.

(1745)

But the concept of distinct society is everywhere in this group of motions. What do we want to do? First, we want the Canada Elections Act to contain provisions similar to those in the Quebec Elections Act on the financing of political parties to be sure that, at the federal level as in Quebec, only eligible voters can fund political parties. We want to ensure that large and small corporations, unions, and lobby groups can no longer legally fund political parties.

The chief electoral officer of Quebec, Pierre F. Côté, when he appeared before the House Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, had given a clear answer to the hon. member for Calgary West. What is important in Quebec's election bill is to define properly what we want. Shall it be one person one vote, or one buck one vote?

In Quebec, in the last 20 years-it will be 20 years next year-all governments have respected a principle now well established in Quebec's political custom, a principle according which no corporation, union or pressure group can provide funding for a political party. Only an eligible voter can do it, to a maximum of $3,000, according to Quebec's laws.

It took some courage for a newly elected government to undertyake such a reform, in 1977, because it is not easy to organize funding by the population, to go and visit your constituents week after week, to ask them how they judge your performance, to ask them also to support you financially.

The recall procedure, for the Bloc Quebecois as well as other Quebec political parties, is a year-long process because you sound out your constituents quite well when you ask them one by one to contribute $20, $50 or $100, and not $60,000, like the hon. member for Bourassa mentioned earlier.

You would need 600 constituents contributing $100 each to equal a big $60,000 cheque donated by a company. It is much easier. But then debts can be called in. It is a lot more difficult for a political party to say no to someone who donated heavily to its campaign fund than to someone who made more modest contributions. This is the purpose of one of our amendments.

We have moved that amendment to avoid the sort of hurried debates we are having today, where the only consultations there were were made at the last minute and where everyone is running about every which way to see if it would not possible to obtain an eleventh hour concession that could make the bill acceptable and save a few clauses with cosmetic changes, when in fact the whole process was flawed from the start and Elections Canada and the government ventured dangerously close to conflict of interest, if they did not actually have one.

If the amendment we are proposing today had been adopted, the House would get advance notice when the government wants to amend the Elections Act. Political parties should be consulted before the introduction of a bill on election legislation. As I will repeat tomorrow at third reading of Bill C-63, neither the official opposition nor the Reform Party were consulted. It is a partisan bill that will lead to a partisan decision.

We will also propose to amend the referendum legislation, Bill C-110, which gives a veto to almost everybody and which at the time I called a big fat chicken with legs for everybody, so that the veto clearly applies to referendums.

This is to say that before calling a federal referendum, the federal government will have to have the approval of the regions and the provinces, including Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, two western provinces representing 50 per cent of the population and two Atlantic provinces representing 50 per cent of the popula-

tion. As for the question to be asked, the approval of the provinces will be required.

Second, there will have to be agreement regarding the results. The federal government will not be able to give effect to a vote on a referendum question if any of the groups I mentioned has objected to the question.

(1750)

Finally, we propose that, if the result of a referendum held under provincial legislation differs from the result of a referendum held under federal legislation, the one held under provincial legislation will prevail, thus demonstrating that it is the provinces that created the federal government and not the reverse, in case this has been forgotten.

My grandfather would puff on his clay pipe and tell me to remember that confederation was the creation of the provinces, that the federal government was not responsible for our existence. Almost everyone in Canada has heard once in his life that the federal government was a creation of the provinces.

We have created a monster of such proportions that it now thinks it created everything, when the reverse is in fact true. It was the provinces that gave birth not to Canada but to the constitutional government that we know today. Contrary to a certain widely held philosophy, Canada was not created in 1867. It existed before that.

It existed when your Acadian ancestors, Madam Speaker, were there, long before the constitutional order of 1867 existed, long before the Europeans arrived. The First Nations were here when Canada came to be. To think that Canada has been in existence only since 1867 or that it will fall apart because of a constitutional reform is to misjudge tradition, the history that forged the soul of this people. It will withstand another constitutional reform.

My colleagues can add to what I have said. I have tried to deal with the eight motions in Group No. 6, which cover the Bloc Quebecois's major amendments. I would again like to congratulate the member for Calgary West for his solid understanding of the problem I am raising concerning distinct society. He is not in agreement with me, and I am not in agreement with him. But at least he is asking the real questions and giving a genuine response, as he sees it, unlike the people across the way, who pretend not to understand the problems. They sidestep the issue, because they are too afraid of what lies beneath the surface.

It is true that distinct society is a term that gives Quebec greater powers, that makes it possible to interpret the Canadian Constitution so that the division of powers provided in sections 91 and 92 of the present Constitution would be set aside and precedence given to an interpretive clause of this sort. In this regard, the hon. member for Calgary West is right.

[English]

Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak on the Group No. 6 amendments to Bill C-63. All eight of these motions have been proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.

As the hon. member for Bellechasse has indicated, these motions cover a wide range of subject matter and are obviously of major significance. I would share his concerns about the entire process here. It does seem to be unfortunate that in reviewing elections legislation we are essentially restricted to discussing matters of this scope and importance in only a few minutes before we move on to voting on the bill on a timetable imposed by the Liberal government.

I am very concerned about the partisanship in this. It is something we had hoped to address. As I have said repeatedly in this debate, we had hoped to be able to support this legislation but we are still not in a position where we can do that.

Having said that I do have grave reservations about most of these amendments, the one motion which I believe my party can support is Motion No. 29. Motion No. 29 goes to the heart of this concern about partisanship. This particular motion by the Bloc Quebecois would require the government to consult the House and specifically the opposition parties for future amendments to this act. That has been a practice in the past and I think it is a practice we should continue and in a serious way get back to.

I will reiterate what the member for Bellechasse said on Friday. I think it is ridiculous in a mature and democratic country that elections legislation would be imposed at the end of a Parliament. The rules of the game change by only one player, presumably for its own benefit. That is not the way elections law works in an advanced democratic society.

Nevertheless, I do want to take some time to address some of these other motions. These other motions have to do with a range of subjects but generally speaking, what they attempt to do in my opinion is to impose much of Quebec's electoral legislation and Quebec's election practices on the federal government. This is a much more radical view of federalism than either I or my party would subscribe to.

(1755)

In this House there are three very different views of Confederation which come out over and over again.

One is the view of the Bloc Quebecois which on a certain level has been not just the view of two founding nations, but a view that this is very much a confederal arrangement and everything that goes on federally is really a creature of the provinces. In effect the

federal government really should only communicate with citizens through the provinces. That is one of the extreme positions.

The other extreme position is the historic position of the Liberal Party which is very much a centralist position. I know in Quebec the Liberals refer to themselves as federalists. This often makes the debate confusing because in fact they are not really federalists. The Liberal Party historically has been a centralist party which views the provinces as little more than units of administration, but not as entities that have sovereignty in their own areas of jurisdiction, which in fact we would maintain is the case under the Constitution.

The Reform Party view is of a federal state where both the provinces and the federal government are entities with clear powers in their own jurisdictions. Both have rights to communicate with their citizens directly.

I will deal with these amendments randomly because I want the House to understand how radical some of them are. For example, Motion No. 32 would amend the referendum act so that the regions would have a veto over a referendum question posed by the federal government. The formula laid out here is the five region formula that was in the government's bill on constitutional referendums, Bill C-110, at the end of the last session.

This goes much further than that. Bill C-110 was a formula for the approval of constitutional amendments. This is not a formula for the approval of a referendum question. We all realize the referendum act at the federal level, as in Quebec, is merely a consultative device. This is an approval process for a question to be asked of the people of Canada by the federal government. I do think this is an extreme position by the Bloc Quebecois. My Bill C-341 challenges the belief that the Government of Quebec can ask a binding question that concerns the future not just of Quebec but of all of Canada in Quebec only and on its own terms.

Yet this particular motion tries to put in the elections act and the referendum act a motion which would proscribe the ability of the federal government to ask a question of Canadians without the prior approval of the Quebec government. I cannot think of a motion that someone could put in here that is more unacceptable to Canadians outside of Quebec. In fact it is unacceptable not just in the case of Quebec; to me, the idea that the Government of Ontario or the Government of British Columbia could veto the wording of a referendum question across the country is absolutely outrageous.

The federal government has referred some of the Quebec government's constitutional agenda to the supreme court. There is a need in the opinion of the Reform Party for the federal government to be able to pose direct questions to the people of Quebec on the issue of sovereignty and separation if we are looking at another referendum down the road.

In the past, the Government of Quebec has not only posed questions which we believe have been fundamentally misleading, but also it has posed questions and has an agenda behind those questions which is clearly illegal and unconstitutional under Canadian law. It is more than appropriate, in fact it is essential in our view, that the federal government not only retain but also exercise its right to consult the people of Quebec directly on their real opinions on things like the issue of separation and on notions like a unilateral declaration of independence. I cannot imagine a proposed amendment to this bill that would be more unacceptable than this one.

Motion No. 35 is similar to Motion No. 32. Motion No. 33, like Motion No. 24, is a motion of wide application. It would effectively impose wide sections of Quebec electoral law upon the federal government, specifically those sections dealing with party financing. It would apply the financing provisions of Quebec's electoral law not just to federal elections but to federal referendums as well.

(1800 )

Let me go over some of the provisions. A lot of them concern matters which are already covered in federal elections law such as the role of auditors and party agents in making financial reports.

Some of these rules have broad sweeping content. For example, these are the rules that restrict fundraising to individuals. Corporate bodies, unions and organizations cannot contribute to political parties. It provides for public financing of political parties directly, based on percentage of vote, and deems what kind of non-financial contributions count as political contributions. It restricts the ability of people to contribute to political parties to no more than $3,000 in a single year.

Some of these notions I could support. I have never had a problem with the concept that only voters should contribute to political parties. However, these amendments are of a wide and sweeping nature and we do not have time to debate them. Suffice it to say there would not be anywhere near consensus in the House on some of these restrictions.

The chief electoral officer of Quebec explained to the committee that there is a history behind the development of some of the electoral practices in Quebec. They were designed to clean up the corruption which we saw, particularly prior to the quiet revolution. There have been great advances made in Quebec, but the fact of the matter is that in our view some of these proposals have problems of their own and would be regressive if applied to the rest of the country. We would be very resistant to some of these ideas, certainly if there were not an opportunity for further discussion.

There is a great deal of material here and further Reform speakers will have a chance to address it.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this group of motions to amend Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act. This group of motions deals particularly with political party funding. However, I would like to say a few words on other aspects of the bill before dealing with the ones now before us.

First of all, it is a good thing to shorten the campaign. Means of communications are a lot more advanced than they used to be. This shortening should make it possible for everybody to have a bit of energy left at the end of the campaign and to be ready to get down to work the next day.

That having been said, there are still things that could be improved in this bill. A lot of amendments were brought forward. For example, in Quebec, we have a permanent register of electors. Now the federal government wants its own list when it could have used the existing lists. People have been enumerated on several occasions in recent years, particularly in Quebec. Enumeration has almost become an annual event. On top of that, Statistics Canada conducted its regular census last spring.

A lot of money has been wasted over the last few years. It may have been a lack of vision on our part not to move faster towards the establishment of a permanent computerized list. We are now moving in that direction. However, that has already been done in Quebec. It would simply be a matter of making the necessary adjustments for the list to reflect federal ridings instead of provincial ridings. With today's technology, there is no reason not to proceed with these adjustments, which would save us a lot of money.

There is an amendment that would have been desirable and even important, one that has been moved and discussed on many occasions by the Bloc Quebecois. It is the issue of political party funding. It is a rule that we already comply with.

(1805)

The law in Quebec limits the financing of political parties by ensuring that only individuals can contribute limited amounts. This is a way to avoid becoming the victims or lapdogs of large corporations which have the means to make financial contributions. Every year a list of financial donations, some of which amount to $100,000 or more, is published, not to mention the donations which do not appear on the list or are divided among different branches, subsidiaries and the like.

So we could have seized this opportunity to make a valuable contribution to the legislation by adding provisions on the financing of political parties. I say we could have done so and there will be opportunities to do so with the amendments proposed, but there does not seem to be much will on the government side to proceed in this way. It is not the first time that Parliament has had an opportunity, since the last general election, to vote on a much more democratic act regarding the financing of political parties.

What is the reason for this? We have to understand the dynamics of this issue and I believe it is worth explaining to the public why it is preferable to have political parties financed solely by individuals.

Generally speaking, people who give money to political parties do so because they believe in the goals they pursue. In the case of the Bloc Quebecois, a goodly number of sovereignists actively support the idea of a party in Ottawa which defends sovereignty and defends the interests of Quebec. There is a reason why they contribute and campaign. They are entitled to be active within the party, to take part in meetings, and so on, while at the same time financing the party. They therefore have a vested interest. They give money, contribute, buy memberships, because of that interest. This allows them to express support of a cause, a commitment to specific policies defended by a political party.

And what about those who contribute $50,000. $75,000 or $80,000 to a political party? Are we to believe it is out of altruism, out of charity, that they give so much? I doubt it. Most people, when they look at that, also wonder just what axe they have to grind. These are often very active people, with their own lobbyists, people that pressure the government, the cabinet, individual ministers. Then they get the changes that they want, ones that bring them results. They practically do a cost-effectiveness study-I contribute $50,000 and then I get a bit more than that back, often a lot more.

Is this how we want political parties to be funded within a democratic system? Absolutely not. As long as they are able to receive these contributions, this is certainly how it will be. The parties will be at the mercy of lobbyists, of organizations that are far better organized financially. One needs only look at the present situation, where for instance there will be a debate next year on the Bank Act, while we are living through a great many economic difficulties around job creation or maintaining a decent social security safety net. Meanwhile, we see some institutions that are in better shape than ever before, making more profits than they ever did.

We saw this during the past few weeks. Anyone who is a bit more familiar with the stock market will know that people are still investing massively in the banking sector because it is very profitable. There may be a problem at some point, but they can afford it. If you look at the contributions to the government party and add up this column of figures, it is also very profitable for the Liberal Party to be on good terms with these people.

Of course it is a lot harder when you have to do your fundraising with donations of $10 and $15, $20 and $5. It takes a long time. To collect $100,000 this way takes time, energy and a good organization. But it does force members to be closer to the grassroots and realize that they have to defend the interests of Mr. and Mrs.

Average, as opposed to a business which makes a lot of money, donates only a very small fraction of its profits to a political party but certainly expects something in return.

The system can never be perfect because these people will always try, in a roundabout way, to exercise pressure and to lobby. We cannot avoid that. However, to legislate against it would put on a lot of pressure. Those who do not comply with the legislation will be liable to severe penalties and have to pay the political price for failing to comply with the legislation governing political parties.

(1810)

I have no doubt that in the end, adopting such amendments would ensure that political parties, especially the big parties we know such as the Liberal Party, or those we used to know, I should have said, like the Conservative Party and others, have to get closer to the grassroots which does not give as much but would require a better organized and more permanent political organization.

This would prevent situations of the kind that arose at the last convention of the Liberal Party which I had a chance to attend, where people slapped each other on the back and said we are the best and everything is fine, while out in the street, many citizens are experiencing problems and wondering why the federal government refuses to make any commitments and set objectives to improve the economy and the employment situation. And yet they say everything is fine.

Of course, when we get people who are more connected to reality and did not pay $500 to register for this convention, they will tell us something entirely different from what we might want to hear, but that is normal, that is healthy, it stimulates discussion and makes politicians do more and have a greater concern for the redistribution of wealth and for other areas by which people are affected.

The question we might ask, because it seems clear that it is a better system, is how is it that no one in this party-or, in any case as we will see shortly, perhaps a few-why are there not more people, particularly among those in authority, supporting the idea?

Obviously, because it would cut off major sources of revenue for their party, and they know very well how it works. It is easy. It provides a network and it also allows future party candidates to establish a network to eventually reach the position of Prime Minister.

So they look for funding everywhere, and in significant amounts. This is no longer appropriate. We are coming up to the year 2000, and we must modernize our political institutions. One way to do so, clearly, is to ensure political parties are funded democratically.

We limit ourselves to public funding. It is not always easy, as those who work in our political organizations can testify. The funding campaigns we wage year in and year out put us in permanent contact with people who comment on the government's action and on our own, when we come to call.

This is what it means to build a democratic system where people have a little more influence than merely a vote every four or five years. There is ongoing contact between the voter and the political parties and this encourages people to participate in democracy, that is, to follow what is going on, to be aware, and enables us to maintain contact and thus have a broader base. It promotes a healthier democracy.

I urge those whose mind is not already set to draw the necessary conclusions and make a move they can think back on with pride when they have retired from politics. Admittedly, it is often frustrating for government members not to be able to influence the course of things as much as they would like, because the power is concentrated in the hands of the cabinet, of those who cash the cheques and get the money. Today, they can ensure they will be able to say that they helped pass a bill of historic significance, by changing how political parties are financed.

At some future date, they will be able to say: ``I was there when this bill was passed'', instead of having to say: ``I was in hiding'' or admitting to voting as they were told so as not to cause embarrassment to their party. I can see there are many members on the other side, including members from Quebec. I am looking forward to seeing how they will vote, because, in Quebec, political parties have to comply.

By members from Quebec, I mean the few Liberal members remaining in Quebec. I am curious to see how they will vote and how they will explain to their voters that they did not want to submit to a democratic financing system, when this is the norm we set for ourselves in Quebec a long time ago.

This issue was settled through legislation passed by the Lévesque government. Of course, here, things move more slowly. We sovereignists would be quite proud to make it our legacy, before leaving this Parliament, to help modernize democracy, through public financing. I am pleased to see some members nodding. Perhaps all it would take is ten or fifteen minutes more to turn a few of them around.

(1815)

I will conclude by urging those few progressive Liberals opposite to support the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois to put in place a democratic public financing system. I think that they would be quite proud of themselves for doing so when they go to bed tonight.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 24. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 33.

The next question is on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 30. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 31. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 32.

The next vote will be on Motion No. 35. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next vote will be on Motion No. 36. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

(1820)

[English]

The next question is on Motion No. 37 in Group No. 7.

Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.) moved:

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-63, in Clause 94, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 43 with the following:

``and 52 of this Act come into force on August 1,''

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

(1840)

[Translation]

Before the taking of the vote:

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question is on Motion No. 1.

The vote on Motion No. 1 will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 9, 15 and 18. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 1 obviates the need for a vote on Motions Nos. 2, 4, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 26, 27 and 28.

A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires a vote on MotionNo. 2. The vote on Motion No. 2 will also apply to Motions Nos. 4, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 26, 27 and 28.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 176)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Zed-112

PAIRED MEMBERS

(1845)

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 1 lost. Therefore, I also declare Motions Nos. 3, 9, 15 and 18 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. The vote on Motion No. 2 will apply to Motions Nos. 4, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 26, 27 and 28.

[English]

The question is on Motion No. 2.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House agrees, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the members of the official opposition will vote against the motion.

(1850 )

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present will be voting yes, unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote no on this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 177)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Zed-137

PAIRED MEMBERS

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 2 lost. Consequently, Motions Nos. 4, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 26, 27 and 28 are also lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 5.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, you will find that there is unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members having voted yes.

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the members of the official opposition will vote yes.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present will be voting no, unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 178)

YEAS

Members

Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Zed-137

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 5 carried.

The next question is on Motion No. 20. If Motion No. 20 carries, it will not be necessary to vote on Motion No. 21. If Motion No. 20 is lost, Motion No. 21 will have to be put to the House.

[English]

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House agrees, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the official opposition will vote against the motion.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present will be voting no, unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 20, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 179)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 20 carried.

The next question is on Motion No. 22.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House agrees, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting no.

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the official opposition will vote yes.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present will be voting no, unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.

(1855)

Mr. Blaikie Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 22, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 180)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

Kerpan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manning
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Richardson
Ringma
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Zed-138

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 22 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 23.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House agrees, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting no.

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the members of the official opposition will vote no.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present will be voting yes unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 23, which was negatived on the following division):

(Division No. 181)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Minna
Murphy
Murray
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Whelan
Wood
Zed-133

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 23 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 25.

[Translation]

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if you asked, I believe you would find that there unanimous consent to apply the result of the previous vote to the motion now before the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[English]

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 181.]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 25 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 6.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House agrees, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting no.

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the official opposition will vote yes.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote yes unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 182)

YEAS

Members

Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-59

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

Gauthier
Gerrard
Godin
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Iftody
Jacob
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Manley
Marchi
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Pomerleau
Regan
Rideout
Robillard
Sauvageau
Speller
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 6 lost.

[Translation]

The next question is on Motion No. 7.

(1900)

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to have members who voted on the preceding motion recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, Bloc members will be voting yea.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote no, unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote no on this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 183)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
English
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manning
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Murphy
Murray
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Richardson
Ringma
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Zed-142

PAIRED MEMBERS

Clancy
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godin
Harper (Churchill)
Hopkins
Iftody
Jacob
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Manley
Marchi
McKinnon
Ménard
Mercier
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Paré
Pomerleau
Regan
Rideout
Robillard
Sauvageau
Speller
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wells
Young

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 7 lost.

[English]

The next question is on Motion No. 8. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 12.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting no.

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the official opposition will be voting yea.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, the Reform Party members present will vote yes, unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote no on this motion.

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 176.]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 8 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 12 defeated.

[Translation]

The next question is on Motion No. 11.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent that the results of the vote on Motion No. 7, which was also moved by the member for Bellechasse, be applied to Motion No. 11 now before the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the following division):

[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 183.]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 11 lost.

[English]

The next question is on Motion No. 13.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I wonder if you would find unanimous consent of the House to apply the results of the vote taken on Motion No. 2, which also stands in the name of the member for Calgary West, to Motion No. 13.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 177.]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 13 defeated.

(1905 )

[Translation]

The next question is on Motion No. 24. The vote on this motion will also apply to Motion No. 33.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on Motion No. 7 to the motion now before the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on the following division):

[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 183.]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 24 lost. Therefore, I also declare Motion No. 33 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 29.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe there would be unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on Motion No. 8 to the motion now before the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 29, which was negatived on the following division.

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 176.]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 29 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 30.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting no.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Madam Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote yes.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present will be voting no unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the New Democrats vote no on this motion.

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 30 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 31. The vote on this motion will also apply to Motion No. 32.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on the previous motion to Motion No. 31 now before the House, and to Motions Nos. 35 and 36 which also stand in the name of the member for Bellechasse.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 31 which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 183.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 35 which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 183.]

(The House divided on Motion No. 36 which was negatived on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 183.]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 31 lost. As a result, I also declare Motions Nos. 32, 35 and 36 lost.

[English]

The next question is on Motion No. 37.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I wonder if you might seek unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote on Motion No. 6 to the motion presently before the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Do we have unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 182.]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 37 defeated.

Mr. Epp: Madam Speaker, when the votes were announced on Motion No. 8, we had no sound. I would appreciate having the numbers announced, please.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The count on Motion No. 8 was yeas, 55; nays, 112.

[Translation]

Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-63 be concurred in at the report stage with further amendments and read the second time.

[English]

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House agrees, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the official opposition will vote nay, Madam Speaker.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present will be voting no unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 179.]

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.)

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being7.12 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.12 p.m.)