Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2005-10-17 12:50:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark\u2014Frontenac\u2014Lennox and Addington, CPC)",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p>Madam Speaker, the minister earlier was constructing a narrative about why he had to put forward legislation that would remove the sunset clause in <a href=\"/bills/952/\" class=\"related_link legislation\" title=\"An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act\">Bill C-3</a> rather than engaging in a review of <a href=\"/bills/952/\" class=\"related_link legislation\" title=\"An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act\">Bill C-3</a>, the legislation that deals with smaller parties and the potential for money to be given to organizations that masquerade as parties. That is the purpose of the bill.</p>\n<p>Now his narrative goes like this. I use the word \u201cnarrative\u201d because it has only a marginal connection to the truth. It is not a lie; it only has a marginal connection to the truth.</p>\n<p>First, he said that the bill was passed days prior to the election of 2004 so there was no time for any review at that time.</p>\n<p>Second, he said that the bill must be reviewed in connection with <a href=\"/bills/973/\" class=\"related_link legislation\" title=\"An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (fiscal equalization payments to the provinces and funding to the territories)\">Bill C-24</a>, the electoral finance law, which deals with among other things restriction of individual donations. He asked the committee in a letter he sent out in November 2004 for this to take place, and nobody objected. He got no response to the letter.</p>\n<p>I have my researcher trying to find the letter, the existence of which I have to admit was a mystery to me. Perhaps I did not see that correspondence. The parliamentary secretary sits on the committee. One might have thought that at some point he would have said a response was needed to the letter. The minister could have done it. The minister crosses the floor to chat with me all the time. This was almost a year ago and I do not recall this. Anyway, nobody objected and therefore it must be done in conjunction with <a href=\"/bills/973/\" class=\"related_link legislation\" title=\"An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (fiscal equalization payments to the provinces and funding to the territories)\">Bill C-24</a>.</p>\n<p>Finally, he said that the Chief Electoral Officer's report on <a href=\"/bills/973/\" class=\"related_link legislation\" title=\"An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (fiscal equalization payments to the provinces and funding to the territories)\">Bill C-24</a> was delayed and it would not happen until later. Therefore, we could not review <a href=\"/bills/973/\" class=\"related_link legislation\" title=\"An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (fiscal equalization payments to the provinces and funding to the territories)\">Bill C-24</a> so we could not review <a href=\"/bills/952/\" class=\"related_link legislation\" title=\"An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act\">Bill C-3</a> either. This meant we would miss the legislative deadline, which meant it would be irresponsible to go ahead and not pass a law getting rid of the sunset clause, ensuring we could deal with <a href=\"/bills/952/\" class=\"related_link legislation\" title=\"An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act\">Bill C-3</a> and its subject matter off at some distant time. I want to emphasize that this is nonsense, and I will ask my hon. colleague a question that relates to this.</p>\n<p>However, first, with respect to the logical link to <a href=\"/bills/973/\" class=\"related_link legislation\" title=\"An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (fiscal equalization payments to the provinces and funding to the territories)\">Bill C-24</a>, one would expect to see this in the original letter that was sent to the procedure and House affairs committee. A letter was sent by the prior minister for the portfolio dated February 10, 2004. Members will note that this was not right before the election. It was long before an election. In it, he asks the committee to take a look at this. He makes no reference to any connection with <a href=\"/bills/973/\" class=\"related_link legislation\" title=\"An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (fiscal equalization payments to the provinces and funding to the territories)\">Bill C-24</a>. In the letter to the committee he says:</p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Let me be clear that I am not suggesting that the Bill is necessarily a permanent solution. The Supreme Court's ruling in Figueroa is complex and may well have broader implications, which the Committee should have a full opportunity to assess.</p>\n<p>For this reason, I would invite the Committee, following its consideration and reporting of the Bill, [<a href=\"/bills/952/\" class=\"related_link legislation\" title=\"An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act\">Bill C-3</a>], to begin a more extensive study of the wider implications of the Figueroa ruling on the Canada Elections Act. I also welcome the Committee's views on other aspects of the electoral process that it believes warrant attention.</p>\n</blockquote>\n<p>There is no necessary connection to <a href=\"/bills/973/\" class=\"related_link legislation\" title=\"An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (fiscal equalization payments to the provinces and funding to the territories)\">Bill C-24</a>.</p>\n<p>The review could not begin until right before an election. However, the letter was sent out. That minister then became minister in June and proceeded never to bother following up. Where does the fault lie? Is it with all those incompetent members of the committee who just could not get around to it or is it with one minister who just could not remember to take care of his own portfolio until a year had gone by?</p>",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "url": "/debates/2005/10/17/scott-reid-3/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/scott-reid/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1382/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Government Orders",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Canada Elections Act",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2005/10/17/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2005%2F10%2F17%2F"
    }
}