Bill C-16 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to provide that, subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament, a general election must be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this enactment comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.
The enactment also provides that the Chief Electoral Officer may recommend an alternate day if the day set for polling is not suitable.

Speaker's Ruling

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like a clarification from the opposite side with respect to proportional representation. I do respect the opinion that, in the member's view, it would lead to better governance in our federal institution.

However, I wonder if he would elaborate briefly on whether he thinks that might lead to the creation of many different political parties and whether that, in turn, rather than bringing better governance, and we have great respect for our party system of course, would lead to less consensus and a machinery of government that would not bring people together, thus making them feel that they were not able to influence the direction of government through the institutions that presently exist. The plethora of political parties gives me some concern. I think it would give this House some concern

I wonder if the member would apply himself to elaborating a bit on that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is more to come on this issue because this is something we have taken on as important change in our democracy. Simply put, what we could do, and what has been suggested by the Law Commission and other jurisdictions, is have a threshold before a party is recognized.

I might add that we are not talking about having full-blown proportional representation on this side as a model. We would look at having two-thirds of the members according to first past the post, in other words the way it is now, and one-third according to a proportional list. When we had elections like in 2000 where 40% of the vote was given to the government of the day, yet it received 60% of the seats, we would change that. Clearly, no one wants that. That is not proportional. When a party like ours receives two million votes and the party across the way receives one million votes, but the other party receives twice as many seats, that is clearly not democratic.

We are saying that we need to change that. There are ways of doing it and certainly making sure that we do not have the kind of pizza Parliament, as it has been called, as a model that no one wants. The way we would do that is to have a threshold, 5% perhaps, before a party is recognized with seats proportionally. In fact, it has been done in every other jurisdiction save Canada. It has been done in New Zealand, the United States, Great Britain and Scotland. We are clearly behind the times. It is time to look at it seriously and to move forward on this issue.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today to join the debate on Bill C-16.

I wish to indicate at the outset of my remarks that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, the parliamentary secretary to the hon. government House leader.

I have had the privilege of serving as the chief government whip in Parliament and the honour, as well, of serving on the procedure and House affairs committee which was the committee to which Bill C-16 was sent for further deliberation following second reading in the chamber.

I was pleased with the work that the procedure and House affairs committee did on this piece of legislation. I commend members from all four of the political parties, not just from the government side but from the three opposition parties, which dealt quite expeditiously with the legislation and I think quite thoroughly. They looked at it, called witnesses, and debated it at some length, as my colleague from the New Democratic Party just alluded to. Amendments were brought forward that provoked further debate and some great comments, I felt, from colleagues from all four parties as we worked through this piece of legislation.

Indeed, it exemplified the way Parliament should work. There was a need identified on the part of the government, but as colleagues from other parties have said, not just on the part of the government. It is something that many people have worked on over the years and have highlighted that there should be further change to our democratic process and institutions.

It reminds me, if I needed any reminding, that I started out in this political business as a Reform Party of Canada member of Parliament. Really, when I was first attracted to the Reform Party back in the late eighties, I was attracted on three big platform issues. I was a farmer at that time raising three young children. I was trying to look forward to what life would be for my children. My children are now all in their mid-twenties. I was concerned then as I am today, as are many Canadians, about what kind of world and what kind of country we will be leaving the next generation.

I focused in on three issues. The first was the need for fiscal reform because I was concerned about the debt load that we would be passing to future generations. That is one of the reasons I am very proud of the steps that the government has taken already in the recent announcement of reducing our national debt by some $13.2 billion. That money was assigned out of the surplus to better enable our country to tackle the issue of our national debt and to ensure as much as possible that we do not see this intergenerational transfer of wealth that could result in reduced services and reduced opportunities for the next generation. Any parent, and indeed any grandparent, is concerned about that type of thing.

The second issue, moving on from fiscal reform for which I was attracted to public life, was the need for judicial reform. Here again, I am very encouraged by steps that the justice minister and the new Conservative government have taken. We have brought in 11 bills already thus far in this Parliament since it got under way in April. I am very proud of that fact. Even if they do not all pass, it has prompted further debate about the need to restore not only justice but the perception that justice is done in our country and that criminals will be held accountable for their actions.

As I travel throughout the beautiful riding of Prince George—Peace River and indeed across Canada, I hear this all the time from Canadians from all walks of life. They are very concerned with what they perceive to be an inherent injustice in our judicial system.

It is important to try to do what we can as parliamentarians to restore that faith in the justice system and, to give one example, in the fact that the most violent and most vicious of criminals will be held accountable and will serve their proper time in jail, not under house arrest.

The third area of interest for me is democratic reform. Here we come to the bill that we are debating. As part and parcel of the need for democratic reform--and the member from the New Democratic Party has just put forward thoughts about proportional representation--we have already taken some steps in this regard. We have legislation in the other place that deals with limiting Senate tenure, because Canadians have expressed concern that under the present system senators are appointed sometimes early in life and serve until the age of 75. Canadians feel that perhaps should be changed, so we brought forward legislation to deal with it.

We also have a bill before the House which I hope we will be debating later this week, Bill C-31. Again, it is on something that was raised at the procedure and House affairs committee by colleagues in all parties. There seems to be a general consensus that something further needs to be done with our electoral system to ensure that, as much as possible, voter fraud is eliminated. I noticed while watching television last night that there is concern about the voter fraud issue in the election that will be taking place tomorrow in the United States. As much as possible, we want to improve our system to ensure that it best serves the needs of Canadians.

On Bill C-16, certainly it has been indicated that we do have general agreement among the parties on wanting to eliminate the potential for abuse, either by prime ministers or, in the case of provincial legislation, which we already have in some provinces, by premiers, by having fixed dates for elections. We all need to be very careful when we refer to this that we do not talk about fixed elections. During the last debate in the House, a few people misspoke. We in the government are certainly not interested in fixing elections, but we are very much interested in fixing the dates of elections.

Already during the debate, we have heard about the fact that if the government were to be sustained until then and in actual fact did not lose the confidence of this place, under our electoral system the next election would not take place until Monday, October 19, 2009. I think that type of clarity is very welcome. I know it is welcomed by the constituents I represent, the people of Prince George—Peace River.

Why do I say that? Because British Columbia does have fixed election dates. It was the first province to do so, in 2001. Indeed, like other countries around the world, it was very quick to see the value in having a fixed election date that brought clarity and certainty to all political parties. It levels the playing field for all participants and indeed for all voters, because it is known well in advance when that election will take place.

In 2001, British Columbia brought this forward and we had our first fixed election date on May 17, 2005. A lot has been said about the possibility that if we have fixed election dates, they somehow will produce lame duck governments, but that has not been the experience, not only in British Columbia but also in other jurisdictions and countries around the world. That has not been the case. I think a strong argument can be made that, with this type of certainty, governments, whether they are majority or minority, will keep governing and working right up to the day of the election. Indeed, far from being a lame duck government, it will be a very effective government and will work in the best interests of its people.

I am almost out of time, but I will note the other argument we have heard, which is that by having a fixed election date the legislative agenda of the government somehow will be held hostage, or that somehow the government could fall suddenly, especially in a minority government situation. That is true, certainly in a minority government situation. We recognize that.

There has been some criticism that under our system the premier of British Columbia and the Prime Minister of the country still will have the power to call an election. That is true, because we have to build that into the system, especially in the present situation because of the minority government. Indeed, it might come about that the government could fall, but I do not think, and I made this point in the last debate, that a prime minister would dare call an election before that date unless he had a very good reason for it. He would be held accountable by the people, because their expectation, through the legislation itself, would be that the date was off into the future.

I of course welcome any comments or questions from my colleagues on this important piece of legislation.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested to hear the speaker's comments about why he became a member of Parliament and what attracted him to the Reform Party, which were the questions of democratic reform and fiscal constraint.

I wonder how he now views the floor crossing of the Minister of International Trade prior to Parliament even having opened, or the appointment of an unelected senator, which is contrary to the Conservatives' beliefs, as the minister who is responsible for one of the largest spending departments of government but who is not able to come into the House to answer questions. His parliamentary secretary is in the House, but he is not a privy councillor and does not have access to the information. How does that square with the member?

He talked about the deficit reduction of $13.5 billion. I thank him for it because the deficit reduction was done by the Liberal Party and the $13.5 billion was from last year's financial exercise, which is completely the responsibility of the Liberals.

On the question of ethics and accountability to Canadians, I ask him how he squares the question of promising not to touch income trusts and then reversing that decision, encouraging Canadians to invest more in income trusts. I do not question the decision, but I question the promise.

Finally, I would ask him if his party would be willing to forgo deciding which bill is a matter of confidence and which is not, leaving only the budget implementation bill and the Speech from the Throne as matters of confidence, and let the House decide what is a matter of confidence.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, could you indicate to me how much time I have?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Probably not as much as you would like.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

That is very true, Mr. Speaker. It is probably not as much as I would like, but with all due respect I welcome the comments of my colleague from the Liberal Party, who rattled off about five questions, any one of which I could spend considerable time trying to address adequately. He talked about floor crossing, the appointment of Senator Fortier, the issue of the Minister of International Trade, income trusts, and confidence motions. I do not know which of those I can pick to try to address in a few minutes, but let us deal for a moment with the issue of confidence, because it pertains to the bill we are discussing today.

During earlier debate on Bill C-16 when it was before the House, we spoke quite extensively about this whole issue, because an interest was expressed by members of the Liberal Party and others that under this bill we should somehow restrict what would or would not result in confidence and thus could result in the minority government falling, in the minority government losing the confidence of this chamber and the Prime Minister being required under our system to go to the Governor General and request that an election be held.

At that time, I pointed out that in addition to the traditional or historical confidence motions dealing with the budget, as the member mentioned, or motions dealing with money matters, whether it is the supplementary estimates procedure in the House, the budget itself or the business of supply, the view is that if the government loses those particular votes, that does, by extension, express a non-confidence in the government and the government falls. I will grant that right at the outset.

In addition, though, I raised the issue that from time to time there are very important issues that come up, and to my knowledge the Prime Minister has indicated only one other issue thus far in this Parliament that would be a confidence measure, and that is the softwood lumber agreement. I think that is appropriate, because that particular agreement is so inherent to the economic well-being of the nation that individual members of Parliament should be required to state very clearly how they are going to represent their constituents on that issue. If the government cannot carry the day on an issue of such importance, then indeed we should go to the people and let them decide how important that is.

There are always going to be special issues, whether it is to extend our mission to Afghanistan or whether is international defence treaties or those types of issues, special issues that we believe will constitute confidence in the government, and we must carry those votes if we are going to stay in office.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all hon. members for what I am sure will be their rapt attention over the next 10 minutes. I look forward to their comments and questions at the end of my presentation.

Let me say a couple of things at the outset about why I believe this is a very good bill, not that government bills are not good when they are presented in this House, frankly, but I think that some are better than others in their formulation. I say that because, as we know, this bill came back from committee without amendment.

Let me just dwell on that for a few moments and, for those Canadians who may be watching this debate, try to explain the distinction to them and why this is a very important distinction. Many bills referred to committee are amended significantly at the committee level. In fact, we have seen an example of that in this House with some of our justice bills. The committee has gutted them almost beyond recognition, to the detriment, in my opinion, of the bills themselves, before sending them back to this place for further discussion and further debate. That is not the case with Bill C-16.

Bill C-16 was a wonderfully crafted bill when it was sent to committee following second reading. In fact, that was exemplified by the fact that after extensive discussion in committee, the bill was referred back to the House without amendment. We are now discussing it and debating it. It will pass, I am sure, after third reading, but again, this speaks to the fact that when this bill was first crafted, when the government decided to bring this bill forward in one of our first attempts at democratic reform for all Canadians, it was a shining example of the type of attitude that this government has when it comes to democratic reform, because it was a bill that required no amendment.

Yes, there was a lengthy discussion and there was a lengthy analysis of the bill, but at the end of the day, the bill in its entirety, without exception, without amendment, was sent back to this place for the approval of all members of this place. Why is that? What makes this bill so strong that it could withstand the scrutiny of all members of the committee, who represent all political parties in this place? Quite frankly, it is so strong because it deals with four very specific issues.

It deals with fairness. It talks about the need for no political party to have an undue advantage when setting the date for the next election. That is extremely important, because time and time again in this place we have seen examples of it by various political parties, and we have seen examples throughout Canada at the provincial level by various political parties, examples where the party of the day had the ability to call an election to fit its own political purposes and, I would suggest, abused that ability.

In this place on more than one occasion we have seen the governing party of the day call a federal election in the middle of, or shortly thereafter, a leadership race of a competing political party. In my opinion, not only is that politically amoral, but it really fuels this level of cynicism about the entire democratic process, of which other members in this place have spoken.

What I believe all Canadians want to see in the conduct of all their parliamentarians is a set of rules and a set of procedures that are inherently fair and balanced. I believe that this bill, by setting a fixed date for every federal election, has that inherent fairness, whereby no political party that happens to be in power would have an undue advantage in the ability to call an election when the polls seem to be prime for that particular party.

This, above all other attributes of this bill, will set a level of fairness that I think all Canadians not only will appreciate but have demanded for oh so many years. It is this fairness that will bring some degree of predictability to when elections are held. I think that is extremely important. When we were discussing this bill at the committee level, we brought in many expert witnesses who talked to this very fact, that in setting a date every of four years for an election, predictability not only helps the government of the day but improves things like voter turnout.

Quite frankly, the longer we are into this process of fixed dates for elections on the third Monday in October of each fourth calendar year, we will find that the voter turnout will increase. People will become more used to the date for the election. If we asked people south of the border, the average citizen of the United States of America would be able to tell us when the presidential elections are held and when mid-term elections are held, because they are set into a routine and they know when election day occurs. That will be the case here in Canada once we are into this process a few elections down the road. Canadians will understand that every fourth year on the third Monday in October there will be a federal election. That will absolutely help in terms of voter turnout.

One of the great tragedies of Canadian politics is that over the course of the last decade or two, we have seen voter turnout steadily decrease. I think we can attribute a number of factors to that decrease. Cynicism certainly is part of it, but if we get into a routine and Canadians know when they will be going to the polls, they will start looking forward to an election. I suggest that they will take more time to examine the issues and pay closer attention to the level of scrutiny that all politicians from time to time seem to abuse. Ultimately I think Canadians in increasing numbers will get out to vote.

In the last two or three federal elections we have seen voter turnout down as low as 62% to 64%. More alarming than that, we have seen a disproportionate number of young voters refusing to exercise their franchise. This bill will be the first step in reversing that trend.

Although some colleagues had opposite views, one of the things the bill will do is it will actually improve the level of governance in this party.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It needs it. It needs it.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear my colleagues opposite agree with that statement. Right now we have a minority government situation and one never knows when the government may fall; one never knows how long this government will last.

In particular, if the bureaucrats, those wonderful dedicated men and women who work for the government, completely understand the timelines in which they have to do their jobs, that can do nothing but improve the governance of this place on behalf of all Canadians. One of the problems we have seen too many times before in a precarious situation politically is that many civil servants are afraid to go out on a limb and make suggestions to their ministers because they are not sure how they will be received politically. I do not think Canadians want that situation to happen.

We have to have confidence not only in the government of the day but also in the civil servants who actually produce with parliamentarians the level of government that all Canadians expect.

I will conclude by saying--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. Statements by members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the third time and passed.

Canada Elections Act

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform has five minutes left in the time allotted for questions and comments consequent on his speech.

The hon. President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of my colleague from Regina about some of the timings of the elections in the last number of years. As the House knows, there were a number of elections that were called on very short order. The one I remember most fondly is the 2000 election, where only three years into a five year term the government of the day called a snap election and at a time when many of the other parties were not prepared or ready to have an election.

Could the member tell us how Bill C-16 addresses some of the concerns that were generated from that snap election call?