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.

[Brian Marlatt, Communications and Policy Director, Progressive Canadian Party]

Thank you to the chair and to the committee for inviting the Progressive Canadian Party to present important evidence, in our view, concerning Bill C-76, the elections modernization act.

The Progressive Canadian Party is a continuation of the tradition in Canadian politics of a Tory party willing “to embrace every person desirous of being counted as a progressive Conservative”, in the words of Sir John A. Macdonald. The PC Party was led, until his recent passing, by the Honourable Sinclair Stevens, who was a minister in the Clark and Mulroney Progressive Conservative governments, and is now led by former PC MP Joe Hueglin.

I'm speaking today as communications and policy chair on the PC Party national council, but I also contributed to the Elections Canada advisory committee of political parties in 2015; again in meetings in 2018, and in fact yesterday; and previously served, before political involvement, as an Elections Canada DRO and Elections BC voting officer and clerk. I hope this experience adds value to our testimony.

Evidence and comments today will be limited largely to implications of Bill C-76 in the context of today's fixed-date election law introduced in 2006, the Fair Elections Act, sometimes described as the voter suppression act by Progressive Canadians, introduced as Bill C-23 in the 41st Parliament, and other proposed electoral reforms that have been part of public discussion of this bill. I welcome questions from the committee in its larger context or details insofar as I may be able to contribute positively to your study of the bill.

As an aside, I will note that because Bill C-76 is important in the evolution of our democracy, vigorous debate in the Senate is likely to follow given the new partisan spirit introduced by appointments in the previous government, which have been moderated but not checked by the new independent advisory committee recommending persons for Senate nomination by the Prime Minister to the Governor General. I have further comments on that. If you wish, we can take care of that in questions.

Change in Westminster parliamentary democracy may be characterized as a balance of continuity and change, of evolutionary trial and error, and at its best when it proceeds by what Renaissance scholar Desiderius Erasmus described as “by little and little”. Unexpected consequences can be moderated, and ill-advised choices mitigated or remedied. Bill C-76 is about evolutionary change. The need for progressive evolutionary parliamentary change is suggested by the 42nd general election.

The 42nd general election of Parliament, on October 19, 2015, well illustrates the need for many of the measures recommended in Bill C-76. The 2015 election was the first one honouring the fixed-date election law. The 41st Parliament had seen the parliamentary opposition in effect neutered by the unavailability of parliamentary responsible government by excesses of party discipline in a majority government and the fixed-date election law.

Omnibus bills and limited debate on controversial legislation, including the Fair Elections Act, became the norm rather than the exception. The last year of the 41st Parliament was reduced, arguably, to a campaign to elect the next parliament. By the end of the session, in June 2015, campaigns and campaign spending by parties and third parties were ramped up before rules applying to writ-period spending came into effect. An almost unprecedented 78-day writ period followed in which party spending limits allowed nationally, and in all 338 riding elections, doubled per candidate. Money became key. The distance between public interest and party interest widened, and concern about Bill C-23 voter suppression grew.

I refer you to “Memo on the Fixed Date Election Law, Money and the Corporate Political Party in 2015, and the implications for Smaller Political Parties, and Independents.” The written copy is appended to this document.

Many of these concerns were anticipated. The Progressive Canadian Party addressed several of these concerns and proposed remedies, which were discussed in a submission solicited by this committee, PROC, in September 2006, when the fixed-date election law was originated as Bill C-16, and in a submission to the Elections Canada Advisory Committee of Political Parties, ACPP, on election advertising, in which the implications of fixed-date elections were discussed. Both documents are available on the EC website or by request from Elections Canada.

Bill C-76 proposes a new pre-writ period in a fixed-date election, beginning June 30, at the end of the session in the year a fixed-date election is to be honoured, and a maximum limit of a 50-day campaign writ period. We cite the following remarks in the PC Party 2015 submission to Elections Canada by way of guidance on ways in which Bill C-76 may be improved:

It is widely reported that political parties or candidates are conducting political campaigns well in advance of the writ being dropped to begin the formal election period. At present, there is no limitation on the spending of political parties or candidates outside of the writ period.

In other Commonwealth countries, notably the United Kingdom, political advertising outside of the writ period is subject to legislated “long campaign” and “short campaign” limits administered by the Elections Commission.... EC advice and interpretative instruction for the 2015 election is strongly recommended.

Advertising activities by the Government of Canada and government departments have included public service announcements of programmes “subject to parliamentary approval.” Such announcements may be deemed partisan advertisements funded by public monies and taxpayer dollars by the agencies contracting to issue such public service announcements because they concern proposals, generally by the governing party of the day, which have not received parliamentary approval.

While this practice is not strictly election advertising in advance of the writ period, the effect is the same. It is recommended that these practices be qualified and that a pre-writ period in the fixed-date election years be extended to mirror long campaign practices administered by the U.K. Elections Commission. This recommendation would apply if the fixed-date election law is not repealed in the interest of protecting the principle of responsible government at the heart of Canadian Westminister Parliamentary democracy.

The Progressive Canadian Party strongly agrees with the intention and certain of the provisions in Bill C-76, which are intended to reverse the outcomes of Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, passed in the 41st Parliament, and to see these corrections as part of the continuity, change, and evolution in Parliamentary practice, by which the unintended consequences or error in previous legislation may be mitigated or remedied. In particular, we commend the restored role of Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer in providing public information during elections and measures to ensure that every qualified Canadian may take part in riding elections of a Parliament in Canada.

We recommend restoring the voter identification card issued by EC as acceptable identification of voters at the polls. We note that in other places and countries, requirements for photo ID and other limitations have had the effect of limiting voter participation and have been described as voter suppression in some sources.

The Honourable Sinclair Stevens, speaking for the PC Party national council in 2014, underscored the seriousness of these concerns, stating that:

It is the view of the Progressive Canadian Party that Bill C-23, entitled the Fair Elections Act...will betray basic principles of democracy in Canada even if substantially amended. Bill C-23 will deny the right to vote to large numbers of Canadians and as such must be challenged in the courts as unconstitutional...in ways indicated by scholars of Canadian constitutional law and political science published in the national media, Progressive Canadians believe the Fair Elections Act must be rejected as unfair, undemocratic, and deserving of constitutional challenge even in light of amendments which are being recommended by members of the House of Commons and in Senate committee. Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act is deeply flawed in fundamental ways and for its apparent intent.

The media release from which this is drawn is appended to this document.

Bill C-76 is a welcome remedy for some of the flaws of the Fair Elections Act. We welcome this remedy. Finally, on the margins of debate concerning Bill C-76 can be heard voices calling to revisit the question of electoral reform, which for them means replacing riding-elected MPs in each of Canada's 338 electoral districts according to single-member pluralities or majorities with party proportional representation according to the national or regional party popular vote.

We elect members of Parliament to the Parliament of Canada in riding elections held in each riding separately in a general election of a Parliament when Parliament is dissolved or in by-elections between general elections. We elect members of Parliament, not parties, movements or prime ministers. Party vote, or distributing seats in the House of Commons according to the proportion of votes received by party members nationally, is not relevant.

These facts about Canadian electoral practices are consistent with the constitutional architecture of Canada and with Canadian realities of space and population. Diversity of interest and of opinion, even within party groups, often varies widely in distant parts of Canada. The view in the north, the coasts, the prairies, and the industrial heartland can vary considerably in ways of party discipline, whether formal or as a part of movement politics, yet it is not reflected in party proportional representational systems.

We strongly advise that the debate on Bill C-76 not be distracted by those who purpose to achieve partisan advantage by advocating for systems of party proportionality regardless of the merit of the movement or party view they may represent. Democratic rights and objectives are not achieved, sustained, or protected by changing the system to achieve partisan advantage; they are achieved by the power of persuasion and a willingness to do the hard work of achieving democratic societal consensus.

I'd like to thank the committee for taking the time to consider our representation and my remarks. I hope they will help to guide you in meaningful debate and conclusions toward modernization of Canadian elections. There are documents appended to this, which you may find expand upon some of these issues that time here may not have provided for. I thank you again.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

So far, a great many people have presented their views on this. I am thinking in particular of Professor Mendes, from the University of Ottawa, whom you probably know. He said that, without affecting the Governor General's power to prorogue, it would be possible to limit the ability of the Prime Minister, as senior advisor, to go to the Governor General to ask that Parliament be prorogued.

Some have compared this to Bill C-16 on fixed date elections. Basically, it is the House of Commons expressing its wish that the government not call elections for partisan reasons and that it have a fixed term of office. However, we also know that in that bill, there was a provision that did not challenge… In a way, it is wishful thinking. And Mr. Mendes explained that, even if it is wishful thinking, over time, a kind of constitutional convention is established whereby the prorogation power cannot be exercised outside of the conditions laid out in the legislation.

In fact, he made a number of suggestions, and I would like to run them by you to see what you think.

First of all, he talked about using the Standing Orders of the House of Commons to prevent the Prime Minister from asking for prorogation in the first year following a Speech from the Throne.

Also, the Prime Minister would have to advise the Senate and the House of Commons in order for there to be a debate subsequently—in other words, a prorogation could not last more than one month. He also proposed a number of other things that would result in the establishment of constitutional conventions, which would become binding over time.

Is that an avenue that could be explored or are we really looking at a constitutional amendment?

[Prof. Peter Russell]

--based on the debate in not this committee but the one that dealt with Bill C-16....

All parties were in agreement that snap elections would no longer be appropriate. The Prime Minister made a fantastically good speech in Vancouver saying that the fundamental purpose was indeed to have an even playing field among the parties, whereas in a snap election, the government has the advantage of finding the opposition in disarray, or down in the polls, in calling an election even though it hasn't been defeated in the House. But when the Governor General was confronted with the request, there was no indication from the opposition, certainly from the leader of the opposition, that he was willing to form a government if Mr. Harper's request was refused. There was no serious protest from the opposition parties.

I watched this very closely, as someone who has to advise the Governor General; the Governor General really had no real option. The lesson of that is that the law isn't worth much if the fundamental political reason for it, which was to avoid opportunistic snap elections, is just discarded, not just by government leaders but by opposition leaders within almost months of the law being put to the test.

I thought it was a devastating walking away of a very sound political agreement--not just by the government; let me emphasize that.

So I'm much more comfortable with legislation that has majority or even all-party support. More than legislation, just make an agreement as the heads of state did in 1926 in London--surely you're up to that--and say, under what conditions can prorogation be advised, and under what conditions does it require something more than just the Prime Minister requesting it?

I think that should be a political agreement rather than legislation. I feel strongly about that. That's my number one choice.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to open the debate on today's theme from the throne speech: strengthening the federation and our democratic institutions.

We have a great, united country whose foundation is a solid federation and a living democracy. In fact, federalism and democracy have gone hand and hand throughout Canada's history.

Our country's history is one of people joining together to achieve great dreams thought impossible by the pessimists, but it is also a history of people who, through accommodation and respect, build practical, workable approaches allowing remarkable progress to unfold.

The project of Confederation was about bringing together the different regions into a strong and united country based on democratic practices and the rule of law. Sir John A. Macdonald, George-Étienne Cartier and the Fathers of Confederation, through strong leadership united Canadians in a federal union which would deliver a future of security and prosperity for the country as a whole. Their vision was strong and enduring, a firm foundation on which successive generations have built.

Our government is continuing this nation building project today with our commitments for strengthening the federation and our democratic institutions. Strong leadership and a better Canada: that is our objective.

I would like to spend my time today discussing the progress we have already made in this area and highlighting our plans for this new session of Parliament.

Our government made a commitment to practise open federalism, and it is taking steps to ensure that our country is prosperous and united.

Our approach is not new, but it is based on the very principles underlying Confederation.

The union was based on a simple concept: the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. The objective was not to have a weak, passive federal government, but a government that would respect the provinces' areas of jurisdiction.

Provincial governments are closer to their citizens and are well positioned to determine local needs and aspirations. In contrast, the federal government is well placed to protect the national interest in pursuit of the common good of the country as a whole. As the project of our Confederation first became committed to paper in the Quebec Resolutions of 1864, this approach was clear:

In the Federation of the British North American Provinces, the system of Government best adapted under existing circumstances to protect the diversified interest of the several Provinces, and secure efficiency, harmony and permanency in the working of the Union, would be a general Government, charged with matters of a common interest to the whole country; and Local Governments...charged with the control of local matters in their respective sections.

The steps we have taken recently and the measures we plan to take to create a federalism of openness will produce unprecedented efficiency, harmony and stability in the union, as the Fathers of Confederation envisioned many years ago.

Our federalism of openness means respecting provincial areas of jurisdiction, and that, in turn, means two things. First, a federal government that shows leadership in its areas of jurisdiction. Second, a federal government that unites the country by introducing fair, respectful intergovernmental policies.

We have shown strong leadership in areas of federal jurisdiction, such as strengthening our economy by cutting taxes and helping families, in the process paying down billions on the debt and achieving the lowest national unemployment rate since I was a child; in international trade with the resolution of the softwood lumber dispute; in defence with our leadership in international aid efforts in Afghanistan; and in public safety and security with our agenda for making communities safer by tackling crime.

In the new session this leadership will continue with measures to strengthen Canada's economic union through internal free trade among the provinces; a commitment to action in protecting Canada's sovereignty, particularly in the Arctic; continued pursuit of a safer Canada beginning with the comprehensive criminal justice reforms in our Bill C-2, the tackling violent crime act.

We have treated the provincial and territorial governments with respect, which has strengthened national unity. To restore the fiscal balance within the Canadian federation, we have increased the main federal transfers and introduced a new stable, reliable, fair funding formula. We have helped build a better Canada with our historic recognition that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada.

Our 2007 budget contained an unprecedented long term commitment to rebuild Canada's infrastructure, amounting to a total of $33 billion over the next seven years, the largest federal investment in Canadian infrastructure in over half a century.

During this session, we will introduce a bill to place formal limits on the use of the federal spending power for new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This bill will formalize the commitments our government made in the 2006 and 2007 budgets, because it will specify the limits on federal power.

In keeping with how we see open federalism, our bill will also allow the provinces and territories to opt out of new shared-cost programs with reasonable compensation if they offer compatible programs. In addition to recognizing the provinces' and territories' ability to provide programs in their specific areas of responsibility, our bill will enable Canadians, wherever they live, to receive services comparable to those available under national programs.

Our diversity as a country serves as a source both of strength and innovation. Through our actions in open federalism, including equitable and predictable funding and clarified roles and responsibilities in our federation, we are offering a principles based approach on which all orders of government can continue to work into the future.

The vision of Macdonald and Cartier of a country united from east to west, of new Canadians and old, French and English, country and city, together dreaming great dreams and building a brighter future is alive and well and has a place deep in the heart of our government in 2007.

However, our Confederation must be more than the sum of its parts. The federal government must act as a leader in keeping the country strong and united and as a model for democratic values. To perform this leadership role, the democratic underpinnings of our government must be solid in order to continue to meet the expectations of the Canadians we serve. Our initiatives in the area of democratic reform demonstrate our government's leadership in this area. Nowhere is this more evident than our efforts to modernize our central democratic institution, a federal Parliament where the representation of both popular and provincial interests are united within the federal legislative process.

Since Confederation, Canada's Parliament has served the democratic interests of Canadians well, but the government must take action to ensure that this institution, which is the cornerstone of our representative democracy, remains strong, vibrant and adapted to the needs of Canadians in the 21st century.

Our bicameral Parliament includes two houses, the lower house here which is comprised of elected representatives of the citizens of this great country originally founded on the fundamental principle of representation by population, and the upper house which was designed to represent the regions of the country to act as a chamber of sober second thought.

However, in the contemporary era, the Senate has been unable to credibly fulfill its role as an effective representative of the regions in the federal legislative process due to fundamental concerns with legitimacy and effectiveness of that appointed and unaccountable chamber. As for the other chamber, this one, the distribution of seats in the House of Commons has shifted too far away from the principle of representation by population, resulting in the unfair under-representation of the fast growing provinces.

Our government has already taken measures to address this situation as we promised during the last election with BillC-56 introduced in the last session to enhance the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons and give fast growing provinces the representation that their population merits, and by Bills S-4 and C-43 introduced in the last session to begin the long overdue project of Senate reform.

I would like to spend a few moments discussing Senate reform. It is a priority of our government that is urgently needed to modernize our federal Parliament. We put forward an agenda for the Senate reforms that is practical and achievable. As stated in the Speech from the Throne, we will continue to pursue this agenda with the reintroduction of two important bills.

The Senate tenure bill proposed a uniform fixed term for senators of eight years. Rather than leave the length of tenure as long as 45 years, as it is currently, our bill proposed that senators be appointed to a fixed term of eight years. This is a change that would bring renewal and relevance to the Senate. This change would improve the effectiveness of the Senate. It would ensure that senators' terms were long enough for them to gain the expertise and independence necessary to act as a chamber of sober second thought, but at the same time it would ensure that the terms would not be so long as to undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the Senate as a modern institution in what we seek to declare to be a democratic country.

Unfortunately, the current unelected unaccountable Liberal senators spent over a year delaying this legislation before they finally took a decision to not take a decision. This action alone, or inaction more accurately, demonstrates clearly that the Senate must change. Its current form does not function well on this issue, or at all.

As I stated, our government intends to reintroduce the Senate term limits bill this session. I hope that the summer recess gave opposition senators some time for that sober second thought in relation to their position of inaction on this bill where they have refused to exercise their constitutional obligation to vote on the bill.

Our second Senate reform, Bill C-43, offered a means for democratizing the Senate by providing Canadians an opportunity to choose and advise who they want representing them in the Senate. It would provide for the first time an opportunity for voters across this country to have a democratic say in who sits in their Senate. This should hardly be a difficult principle to embrace in a 21st century western democracy. It would provide greater legitimacy and credibility to the work of the Senate as a democratic institution.

I was extremely pleased to attend the swearing in of Senator Bert Brown last week. He of course was popularly elected by the people of his province. I hope that we can look forward to the day when the Senate appointment consultations bill becomes law and all senators arrive in Ottawa with a democratic mandate.

As the Prime Minister has indicated, when the Senate consultations bill is reintroduced, we will be sending it to committee before second reading so that collaboration can begin on this important step toward a democratic Senate.

There are some who have suggested that governing parties of the past could maintain the status quo in the Senate out of self-interest, that we could benefit from the patronage appointments to be made and stack the chamber with partisans who would serve for decades. Our government believes that the Senate should be a democratically elected body that represents Canadians. So far, we have taken concrete steps toward that vision and they are steps that are achievable in the short term. What is more, surveys show that our agenda for term limits in a democratized Senate is strongly supported by Canadians. Surely in a democracy this above all should be a key indicator of what constitutes a good democratic reform.

The Senate must change. If it cannot be changed, it should be abolished. In its current illegitimate form the Senate does nothing to enhance our democracy, even as we aim at the same time to promote democratic values abroad.

I would now like to address a second element of the democratic reform program that we will continue to implement during this new session of Parliament: strengthening the electoral system.

A strong democracy requires both modern democratic institutions and an electoral process with integrity that inspires confidence among voters.

We have already introduced a number of measures that were passed in the last session to improve elections, which were broadly supported.

For example, Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act—the first legislative measure we introduced—fulfilled our campaign commitment to clean up political funding. We levelled the playing field by banning donations from companies and unions, as well as large and secret donations, so that ordinary Canadians can contribute to the political process knowing that their donations will really count.

Bill C-4 was the first bill passed in the last session. We acted quickly to ensure that the party registration rules would not sunset and that those registration rules would remain in effect at all times.

With Bill C-16, setting dates for elections, we have established a four year electoral cycle, preventing snap elections from being called solely for the partisan advantage of the governing party.

As a result, after this House provides a mandate to govern when it approves the throne speech on Wednesday, we can look forward to the next election, now set in law to take place October 19, 2009.

In Bill C-31, we implemented wide-ranging recommendations of the procedure and House affairs committee for improving the electoral process, including important measures for reducing the opportunity for voter fraud, such as a voter identification procedure for federal elections.

In addition to these bills, which are now law, we introduced additional election reforms that did not have an opportunity to pass before we prorogued.

Building on our political financing reforms in the Federal Accountability Act, Bill C-54, our new bill to clean up campaign financing, proposed bringing accountability to political loans by eliminating loans as a means for circumventing contribution limits and establishing a transparent reporting regime for campaign finance.

Building on a number of measures for improving voter accessibility, Bill C-55, our expanded voting opportunities bill, proposed additional advanced polling days to enhance opportunities and encourage higher voter turnout.

During the second session of Parliament, our government will continue to strengthen the electoral process.

As stated in the Speech from the Throne, we will introduce measures that will enable us to confirm the identity of voters by requiring them to uncover their faces before voting. Like our other reforms, this concrete measure will improve the electoral process for all Canadians.

Public concerns raised about this issue during the September 17 byelections made it clear that we must act.

During meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in September, all parties approved the decision to prioritize resolving this issue.

Our government will act quickly to resolve this issue, and I hope that I can count on the support of all members of Parliament to give Canadians the strong, fair electoral process they expect.

There is so much that makes Canada great. We are mindful of the valuable legacy bestowed upon us by the visionary leadership of Sir John A. Macdonald, George-Étienne Cartier and the Fathers of Confederation when they rendered the blueprint for what has proven to be the best country in the world. But it is our strong foundations that enable us to continue building a better Canada that is a leader in the world.

Those foundations are our federal state and our democratic spirit, but we also know, as did those Fathers of Confederation, that as the world modernizes, so must Canada. That is in fact the spirit of Confederation. It is that spirit that leads us to seek ways to strengthen our democracy and improve accountability to Canadians. We must be a democracy worthy of that name in a 21st century world.

Our government has already put forward a full agenda to fortify and modernize our federation and democracy, and we will continue to do so this session. We invite all parties in the House to join us as we build a stronger Canada with a brighter future for the generations that will follow.

Canada Elections Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand to speak in support of not only Bill C-31 but the majority of the amendments that we have seen coming back from the Senate.

First, I would say that while Bill C-31 is important, it is only one in a suite of democratic reform initiatives that the government has brought in. We have seen, for an example, very important democratic reform initiatives such as fixed election dates which is Bill C-16. It passed and has come into force. It states that the third Monday of October 2009 will be the date for the next general election unless of course by some strange occurrence the combined opposition determines that it wants to have an election before that date.

That was the first initiative that we brought in to try to ensure Canadians that there would be some consistency and regularity in the timing of federal elections. Far too often we saw political parties in power manipulate the voting system to their advantage. In other words, we saw parties in previous years take a look at the polling numbers and if they determined that it would be to their advantage to have an election earlier rather than later, because the polls happened to be advantageous for them, they would call an election at that time.

Subsequently, we saw both federally and provincially from time to time governments of the day go well beyond a traditional four year voting window because the polls were not quite a favourable for them during that four year cycle. What we are doing with Bill C-16 is ensuring that all Canadians will have some certainty as to the timing of federal elections and I think that is a good thing for democracy. I think it is a good thing for Canadian voters.

Also, however, we saw several other initiatives with respect to democratic reform. We saw bills come forward dealing with expanded voting opportunities in an attempt to get more and more voters to turn out at the polls. As I said in that debate, we have seen over the course of the last two decades or so a decline in voter turnout year after year, or at least election after election.

I think that is a reflection of many factors, the overall probably being the cynicism that most Canadian voters have with the political process per se. What we are trying to do, by presenting a bill that will give increased and expanded voting opportunities for all Canada, is attempt to raise the level of voter turnout because.

I think that we all agree, regardless of our political affiliations, that it is incumbent upon all Canadians to express either their opinions come election day or at least exercise their franchise because if we ever got to the point where we had less than 50% of the people in the country who were eligible to vote electing a government of the day, that would be truly a sad day for the democratic process.

We have also seen other examples of our democratic reform initiatives. Just today in committee we dealt with Bill C-54 on political loans and how we can ensure that all loans given to candidates over the course of an election are done in such a manner that we can ensure accountability and transparency. I think that is a very important initiative, again, one of a suite of initiatives we brought in.

There will be further democratic reform initiatives as we go forward in the course of the government's life cycle. Today I want to speak specifically to Bill C-31, the voter integrity bill. I think there is no greater fraud that could be perpetrated on Canadians than that of an individual voting in a federal or provincial election who pretends to be someone that he or she is not. In other words, I think there could be no greater fraud than someone trying to influence the election results by fraudulent manners. That is what the bill deals with.

In committee, we dealt with many of the things that we felt needed to be corrected to ensure that there was greater accountability, transparency and greater integrity in the voting system. Primarily we talked about things around identification where all voters now, once the bill becomes a law of the land, will be required to show sufficient identification at the polling station to ensure that they are who they purport to be because we have heard on many occasions many examples of individuals fraudulently voting in individual elections.

Anything that we can do, as a House and as individual members of Parliament, to stop that abuse of the voting system is extremely well intentioned and I think will be well received by the voting public. We dealt with that and many other issues of which my hon. colleagues who proceeded me in this debate spoke about.

Primarily, we came up with what we thought was a bill that would accurately reflect the intention of the committee. The committee worked long and hard on the bill and at the end of day when we reported back to this House, we felt that we had a bill which would capture all of the suggestions and recommendations of committee members who dealt with the bill over a period of several months.

However, as is normally the case, and it seems at least these days it is normally the case, when our bill went from our place to the Senate there were additional discussions and additional amendments. While some of the amendments from the Senate are ones that we have some question about, I am pleased to report that the vast majority of the amendments that were made in the Senate will be agreed to, at least by this government.

We are doing so in a manner which we believe we can get the bill passed into law before we rise for the summer because in a minority situation, the length of a minority government is tenuous at best. If we happen to have an election within the next six months or so, we want to ensure that we have a bill that deals with these very important issues, so that we can ensure that voter integrity is at the utmost, that we dispel and dispense with any kind of attempted fraud in the next election that will be held, whenever that may be.

I want to speak for a few moments on the amendments brought back from our colleagues in the Senate. There were about 12 amendments in total but they fit into about five broad categories. The first one deals with what is generally known as bingo cards. Most of us in this House and any politician who has ever run for elected office is familiar with the concept of bingo cards. For those Canadians who may be somewhat confused about what a bingo card has to do with an election, let me explain.

Every political party, certainly every candidate, wants to track their supporters and whether or not they are supporters that they have identified during the preceding number of months leading up to the election and actually come out to the polls and vote. From time to time there are very close election races throughout Canada. When I was first elected in 2004, I was elected by a whopping majority of 122 votes.

One of the elements that really helped my election in that very stressful time was the fact that we had a very good voter identification program within my riding association and within my campaign team. On election day we had a very good “get out the vote” team which tracked people who came into the polling station, find out which of my supporters had not yet made it to the polls, and we brought those people for the most part to come in to vote. Close to 80% of my identified vote actually cast ballots in that election of 2004.

The use of bingo cards is a mechanism by which we can track the voter turnout. As the name suggests and anyone who has every gone to a bingo hall and played a game knows there are cards with numbers from 1 through 400. When scrutineers go into an election or polling station they are able to mark off on the bingo card the number of the voter assigned to them on the electoral list to ensure that everyone in our campaign team, or get out the vote team, understands who has, and more importantly, who has not voted.

From time to time during the day our scrutineers would go in and pick up these bingo cards from the inside scrutineers, take them back to GOTV headquarters, and phone voters who had not yet made it out to the polls in an attempt to make sure that all of our supporters understood the importance of their vote in that election.

What we are saying in this provision, at least what Bill C-31 purports, is that the bingo card concept be formalized and that Elections Canada be tasked with the responsibility of developing a standardized bingo card that would be available for all political parties and all candidates, so they could use the same get out the vote techniques that most candidates and most political parties have been doing informally over the course of the last number of years.

We see this being an asset to the political process because it helps engage all or potential voters by getting them out to vote. Yes, some of them might need a slight kick in the rear end from some of the GOTV members, but if we can at least increase the voter turnout we will have done a great service for the democratic process. So the amendments that the Senate brought back in with respect to bingo cards are ones that we agree with.

What are those amendments? Primarily, they say that in the original report coming from this place bingo cards should be available and updated every 30 minutes, so that candidates and political parties would be able to go into polling stations every 30 minutes to pick up the bingo cards and take it back to their GOTV headquarters and start their phone backs.

What the Senate has amended is that during advance polls these bingo cards need only be picked up once a day. That makes perfect sense to me. The time a candidate wants to know is on election day what the voter turnout is like. So that every 30 minutes during an advance poll is almost a bit of overkill. It is certainly not required. Therefore, I think it was a very useful, a very serviceable amendment to suggest that bingo cards during those four or five days that advance polls are open need only be picked up once a day and we agree with that.

That segues nicely into the second major classification of amendments and that deals with coming into force provisions. Primarily, we only have one problem with any of the coming into force provisions as amended by our colleagues in the Senate. That again deals with bingo cards.

What it suggests is that electoral offices be given 10 months to develop these bingo cards themselves and come up with a standardized format that would then be available for use by all parties and all candidates.

We feel that 10 months is too long. We believe that this bingo card format can be structured, developed and printed within a six month period. Therefore, we will be putting our new amendment that we will send back to our colleagues in the Senate, and we hope that they support it, suggesting that the only amendment we wish to make on its amended bill is that the coming into force provision for bingo cards would be six rather than 10 months.

I think that is a very legitimate and reasonable amendment for us to be making. We say that because again in a minority government one never knows how long such a government will last. In other words, if this bill is given royal assent before we rise for the summer, that means if we have an election before December bingo cards would not be available, but if any election is held from 2008 on we will have bingo cards available for all candidates. We think that is reasonable.

Again, the only change to the amendments that the Liberal dominated Senate has made is that we will have a six month window rather than a 10 month window for the bingo cards.

The third provision that is captured by amendments in the Senate deals with casual election workers. Again, as we know in a minority government situation we need a lot of casual workers who work from election to election to election on standby because there can be an election held at any time.

Currently, the Public Service Employment Act contemplates that casual workers and the broad category of casual government workers could only be classified as such if they work 90 days or less in any calendar year.

We felt that was too tight of a time line because if there happened to be two elections in one year, clearly 90 days would not be enough time for a casual worker to do both elections. Thereby, they would fall outside of that 90 day classification.

What the Senate committee had discussed and amended was that the provision now read that 165 days be the length of time that casual workers would be classified still as a casual worker within the Public Service Employment Act. We think that is reasonable and we are certainly willing to agree to that amendment and recommend that the amendment be passed in this House.

The fourth provision is one that I know will take a fair amount of time. I see that the time—

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend my colleague on his speech. Since he is from Montreal, his situation is different than mine. My constituency is on the north shore in the Montreal area.

I have five municipalities to cover, including a regional capital, and the realities are truly different from one municipality to another. It is much easier to cover a regional capital than the small surrounding municipalities, because sometimes there are great distances to travel from one end of the municipality to the other. We therefore need more polling stations for people to get to.

The problem we often encounter is the absence of public transit, which is not an issue in Montreal. In our regions—except for the regional capital of Saint-Jérôme—there is no public transit to allow young people to travel to vote, if they want. It is extremely difficult to get a high voter turnout depending on where the polling station is located. This entire matter should be reviewed.

Reference was made to low voter turnout among our youth. Should we not consider having polling stations in CEGEPs, and allowing voting on more than one day? Should we not consider having polling stations in universities, where students could register? Students often come from other cities. If the fixed election date is in the fall, they are in school then. They do not necessarily go back home over the weekend, because they have homework to do. Also, if they got to register right at the university, that might act as an incentive to vote. The very low voter turnout among high school, college and university students is definitely a concern.

I have nothing against two additional voting days, but I do not think that will boost voter turnout. We know that, at the federal level, from the moment that a candidate's nomination paper has been filed with and approved by the Chief Electoral Officer, one may already vote at any time at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. The name of the candidate may even be written by hand, if the ballots are not ready. It has been done, and it has been a common occurrence where I come from.

However, there is a single office of the Chief Electoral Officer and it is normally located downtown in the regional capital. People from outside that area are not likely to be able to easily get there to vote.

We also know that one can vote by mail. There are various ways one can vote. Many mechanisms are already in place at the federal level to allow people to vote.

Someone mentioned ID card and the voter cards earlier. There have been discussions for quite some time about the idea of a voter card for everyone. Voters would only have to show that card, instead of having to produce two pieces of identification.

I will give an example. I have an 18-year-old son who voted for the first time in my last election. However, he still does not have all the cards that we have, as adults. He still does not have a driver's licence, he has only his health insurance card. I had to identify him because I was asked to. He was asked for two cards at the polling station.

So this is a problem for young people. It is also a problem for some people who live below the poverty line and who may not have all these cards and all these tools to be able to go and vote. They will not take the trouble to go, either, because they will tell themselves that they would not be able to vote in any event.

When the bill is sent to committee, we may have to consider this possibility and examine it properly to be sure that we include it in Bill C-55 and improve the bill.

This bill is of some value, but it is very slight. It talks about adding only two days. There is not a lot in Bill C-55 that would prompt us to vote for it with any great enthusiasm because it is changing a lot of things.

On the contrary, it is not changing much. We said that we would vote for this bill at second reading to be able to study it further and in greater depth in committee. I hope that some ideas will come out of that committee for improving the bill.

There is also the whole question of the lack of interest in politics, as several of my colleagues have said. When it comes to federal politics, fewer people are voting. People have lost interest. Since 1993, I have taken part in five election campaigns. I have to say that I have been disappointed several times. There was even one time when the turnout fell to 52%, and that was disturbing because the percentage of people voting should be higher than 52%. This means that there is a lack of interest in politics, in representation in Parliament and in political parties. There is also a lack of interest in ideologies. This is disturbing. We have to find a way of restoring our fellow citizens' interest in voting.

The last campaign we had lasted almost 59 days. In the middle of that campaign we had Christmas and New Year. That made no sense. In my riding, during the holiday period, people had things planned for Christmas and New Year's Day. They had family and other people coming to visit. Of course people talk politics over Christmas, whether as a family or in other groups, but I have to say, sincerely, that the volunteers and people working on the ground needed a bit of time off to be able to celebrate with their families.

In my riding, we decided to take a break for those two periods. It made no sense to force volunteers to work on Christmas Day or New Year's Day. They are volunteers, they give their time, energy and enthusiasm to our election campaigns. We have to take all that into account too.

I am very happy with Bill C-16, which will give us fixed election dates so long as the government is not defeated because it is a minority government. Fixed election dates are a necessary and much less partisan approach. People might listen a bit more to what we have to say. People might have more confidence in us if the government cannot take advantage of being ahead in the polls to call an election and hand out goodies. We know how that works. As I said, I have been through five election campaigns.

I think that there will be some basic changes in this bill. I can well understand what my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel goes through. He has a huge riding. Mine is a little smaller, but I still have to deal with five large municipalities. If we want to make services available and heighten people’s awareness, we have to provide them with more places to go and vote. I know that my colleague has to deal, just as I do, with a lack of public transit. People must have a car. But not everybody has one. Poor people do not have the means. Not all young people have access to one. For my part, I went to get my son so that he could go to an advance poll in the last election in Quebec. If I had not done that, he probably would not have gone to vote. It is very important, therefore, to raise the awareness of our youth and do so while they are still very young and in secondary school. They should be told what politics is all about. I am not saying they should be able to vote at a younger age, but they should be informed in school.

I have toured around some schools. I have been invited to speak about politics and tell young people what a day in Parliament is like and what an MP is. They do not really have any idea. It should be part of what we do and our responsibilities as MPs to go and talk to young people in secondary school—I do not mean grade 7 but students who are 14 or 15 years old—so that they can ask questions, get informed and understand. They should also be invited to come here and see what happens. A lot of schools send students. They visit Parliament and see question period. That is not always so great, however, because they see us get very excited. It is not necessarily a good example, but I believe that we can connect with our young people.

I was also invited to visit a political science class in a CEGEP to answer questions from the students and to tell them about the work of an MP, in their riding and also in Ottawa. So, it is important to discuss these matters and to find a way to connect with them.

There are also people who cannot get out and who must vote at home because they have a serious disability. My returning officer personally went to a house to allow someone to vote in her own home. That was a fine deed. People may vote as they please, but everyone has an absolute right to vote and I believe we have to maintain that.

However, I do not believe that simply adding two days, as the bill proposes, will be enough. A great many other changes are needed. There are things missing from this bill. We must also avoid scandals and observe the electoral laws. Spending limits must be enforced and there must not be any slush funds. That is extremely important. Our transparency must be crystal clear. That is, perhaps, what will lead people to take a greater interest in politics. They will then say that their politicians are much more honest than they thought. They will look at us in a new way. I believe that is how we should engage in politics. I have always practised politics in an honest manner and I believe it pays dividends.

There is a great deal of work to be done with the media in terms of awareness. Returning officers already do that work. However, on the media side—television, radio, etc.—even more information is needed, perhaps targeted at young people and specific age groups, with very precise messages to seize their attention and give them a desire to vote. In addition, there is all the work that we do. When people hear about things like the sponsorship scandal, that does not help us, and it leaves people disgusted with politics and politicians. We all felt that in the last election campaign. That kind of thing should never happen again. I hope it will not happen again and that, in future, the rules will be tightened up to avoid things like Option Canada and the endless list of scandals.

Scandal after scandal, people are disillusioned and fed up with politics. They say that politics are not necessary and, in any case, politicians are all the same. It is a bit disappointing to hear people say that. There is not much use trying to explain because that is often the answer we get. I think that politics have to be made more accessible insofar as what we do is concerned. We are making progress. We are doing it by means of the householders we send out to inform our people four times a year. What we do here has to be made known, though, in a much more general way so that people really understand. If I am talking with someone about Bill C-55, he has to be able to understand exactly what that is.

Not everyone is highly politicized, of course, but I think that we can connect with people more and get through to them.

I am looking forward to this bill going back to committee because I think it can be improved. All the parties in the House surely have important suggestions to make. We can make them in a harmonious atmosphere because they are intended to make it easier for our fellow citizens to go and vote.

What I have seen in some places did not make sense. Polling stations were chosen in inaccessible places, sometimes even churches or little chapels when it was bitterly cold outside. People could not even get inside to wait. They had to stay outside in the middle of the winter in a snowstorm or in temperatures of 30^o C below zero. That is unacceptable. We need to review all that. We have to make sure places are found. I know that people cannot vote in schools in federal elections, but in Quebec they do. It is much easier that way. As a result, locations have to be found all over the place and sometimes they are very inaccessible. This is something that we really should review for Canadians. One result of all this is that people get angry. They go back home and say they will not vote because it does not make sense to be forced to wait outside for half an hour when it is 30^o C below zero.

Then there is the whole issue of homeless people, to which my colleague referred earlier. It is important that these people also be allowed to vote. A voter's card would be the best means to allow them to vote in an election. We must reach out to these people, and we must also find an effective way to do so. They must have a say in the election of their government, which is going to develop policies that may save them, or help them move away from homelessness. There are associations that look after these people, but we must do more to encourage them to vote.

In conclusion, I personally think that Bill C-55 does not do much. I hope the government will be open to constructive amendments that will truly increase the chances of seeing these people vote in large numbers. We must fare better than we currently do in this regard. Indeed, it is rather disappointing to see that only 52% of the population voted. Even when we win, it is disappointing to see that people are turning away from politics.

So, as I said, I hope we can improve this bill by using everyone's input, and by using our experience both in Parliament and in the community, because we also work in the community.

I am currently working as the assistant to our new election campaign director. We talk to people and we hear what they think. They have good ideas. We must follow up on these ideas with concrete measures. Of course, we should not expect miracles. We will not achieve a 100% voter turnout. However, the more the voter turnout increases, the better we can do our work as representatives of the public, as elected people, as members of all the various parties and, in my case, as member of the Bloc Québécois.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

moved that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expanded voting opportunities) and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open debate today on the expanded voting opportunities bill.

The right to vote is our most precious and fundamental right. Each year about 150,000 people become new Canadian citizens. Most have come to our nation in search of freedom and they find that when they achieve Canadian citizenship, the right to vote, among the many rights and privileges they are conferred, is the most treasured privilege and duty that they do acquire.

Public participation in the political process, by exercising one's right to vote, is the cornerstone of our democracy. Voting validates the position of a responsible and accountable government. Of all forms of civic engagement, voting is perhaps the simplest and most important. By deciding to vote, Canadians have a say in what happens to their country.

By the very act of voting, they are playing an active role in the future of their country and their community, first by reflecting on the decision they must make and then by the decision itself. It is precisely for this undertaking that many people become citizens.

A deeper community and civic commitment is built on this foundation. It may lead to the creation of a minor hockey league for children, the organization of a tree-planting project or the cleaning of a ravine.

Unfortunately, voter participation in elections has been in decline over the years. In 1958, 79.4% of Canadians voted in that year's general election. However, that fell to 69% of eligible voters by 1993 and by 2004 only 60.5% of eligible voters cast a ballot.

Unfortunately, young people voted at even lower rates than previous generations. In fact, in the 2000 election, only about 25% of eligible voters between the ages of 18 and 24 bothered to vote.

It is undeniable that fewer people are going to the polls in Canada, yet we know that the one true method for citizens to hold their governments to account is through the ballot box. When voter turnout declines, it means that fewer people are holding their governments to account. The result is that our democratic system suffers.

We on this side of the House want to change the current situation. We want to see more people engaged in the political process and we want more people to vote.

A study led by Elections Canada indicates that many Canadians have trouble finding the time to go vote. Generally speaking, between work, studies and family, they do not have enough time to make it to the polls. I know that, on voting day, many people get up in the morning with the intention of voting, but because they have to work extra hours or because their kids have a minor hockey game that night, they do not find the time to exercise their right to vote.

At the same time, Canadians indicated that they appreciate the convenience of advance voting, and more and more voters are taking advantage of the opportunity to vote at advance polling stations. Indeed, voter turnout at advance polling stations nearly doubled between the 1997 election and the 2006 election.

Furthermore, the European example has shown that opening polling stations on Sundays leads to greater voter turnout. For instance, in the French presidential election held Sunday, May 6, voter turnout was 85%.

Therefore on May 9, 2007, we introduced the bill that we are debating today, Bill C-55, to increase voter turnout by giving Canadians more opportunities to vote.

The bill, which is part of our agenda to strengthen accountability and democracy in Canada, adds two advanced polling dates. One is on Sunday, the eighth day before election day, and the other is on Sunday, the day before election day.

The Sunday before election day will be a special advance poll. All polling stations used for the general voting day will be open on the last advanced polling day, not just a limited number of stations used for any other advanced polling days.

That means that Canadians will now have the choice of voting on election day, which is a Monday, or on Sunday, the day before election day or earlier at four other advanced polls.

This will mean all Canadians will have an opportunity to vote at an advanced poll right in their own neighbourhood on a Sunday which for many is a day without work or school commitments. This will make it easier for Canadians to vote.

With this increased convenience, we hope that families will bring their children with them when they go to vote, helping them to appreciate from an early age the civic duty and opportunity to cast a vote and to understand what it means to be a citizen in a free and democratic country.

These are lessons that if well taught last a lifetime, build stronger communities and make a brighter future for Canada. We know that engaging more Canadians in the electoral process through increasing voter turnout is good for our democracy and good for our country.

It is not just the government who is saying this. The expanded voting opportunities bill has also received the endorsement of academics and interested groups across Canada. For example, a group called Apathy is Boring, which aims at increasing youth voter participation, welcomes the bill. It said:

Apathy is Boring applauds the Expanded Voting Opportunities Bill, which makes a small but critical change to polling days. Accessibility is key to voter participation, and this bill will help ensure accessibility especially among young people.

Keith Archer, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary, said, “My view is that this legislation is a thoughtful and constructive response to the decline in voter participation in Canadian federal elections, and is aligned with the evident growth in the desire of Canadians to avail themselves of the opportunity to vote in advanced polls...the government is to be applauded for introducing this legislation”.

Leslie Seidle, a senior research associate at the Institute for Research on Public Policy, said, “It ought to encourage more people to go to the polls by offering them additional time on what is a non-working day for most.

These comments show that the expanded voting opportunities bill is a modern, realistic and effective way to increase voter turnout in Canada. However, the bill is just one piece of our agenda to strengthen accountability and democracy in Canada.

Since coming into power, this government has made many efforts to develop concrete measures for democratic reform. One of these legislative measures, tabled in Parliament by this government, was Bill C-4 which led to a review of the rules governing the registration of a political party. And just before Christmas, we passed the Federal Accountability Act, which provides for new strict rules governing campaign financing. Loans by unions and businesses will be prohibited as will be anonymous contributions and trust funds, and the maximum annual donation to a political party is now $1,100.

These two legislative initiatives will help restore the confidence of citizens in the democratic process.

Next we introduced Bill C-16 to establish fixed dates for elections. The bill sets the third Monday in October, four calendar years after each election, as the date of the next general election. Under the legislation, which is now law, the date of the next general election will be October 19, 2009.

Fixed date elections take the guesswork out of the electoral process and level the playing field for the Chief Electoral Officer, for political parties and, most importantly, for voters. They also encourage participation in the democratic process by allowing Canadians to plan to participate in their nation's electoral process.

I am very proud to announce that Bill C-16 has received royal assent despite all the efforts of the unelected Liberal senators to block implementation of the democratic reform proposed by our government.

Next we introduced Bill C-43, the Senate Appointment Consultations Act. With this bill we have acted to strengthen accountability with legislation that gives Canadians a say in who they want representing them in the Senate.

The proposed Senate appointment consultations act recognizes that it is the citizens of the country, not big money or backroom boys, who are best qualified to choose who should speak for them in the Senate. The Senate appointment consultations bill is currently being debated at second reading and we are anxious to see passage of this groundbreaking legislation.

That brings me to Bill S-4, the legislation that proposes to limit Senate terms to eight years instead of the current 45 years.

Today just happens to be the first birthday of the bill to limit the terms of senators. It has been delayed and obstructed by the Liberal Senate for a full year now. Remarkably, even though the Leader of the Opposition says he supports term limits for senators, Bill S-4 has been ensnared in procedural limbo since May 30, 2006, thanks to Liberal senators bent on obstructing and delaying any meaningful democratic reform.

We hope the Liberal senators will give the House of Commons a chance to actually deal with this bill one day.

As you can see, these legislative measures, including Bill C-31, which provides for the improvement of the integrity of the electoral process, as well as all the other bills tabled last week, are modern, realistic and effective and will strengthen our democracy and restore the confidence of Canadians in our democratic institutions.

The bill on expanded voting opportunities provides Canadian workers with more opportunities to vote so that they can make their government accountable. This is an effective means of ensuring an increase in voter turnout and strengthening democracy in Canada.

Unless we check declining voter turnout, we run the risk of having an increasing number of Canadians becoming disengaged from their government.

The way public affairs are conducted could become less democratic and less responsible.

For democracy to work, it must be the property of all, not just a place for narrow interests to pursue their own agenda. That is why it is important for more Canadians to participate in the democratic process. Voter participation is fundamental to the health of our democratic institutions.

Canada's new government is doing all it can to encourage citizens to participate in the democratic process.

This modern, realistic and effective legislative measure represents a new stage in the ambitious action plan that our government has developed to improve democratic institutions and to strengthen the vitality of democracy in Canada.

For all these reasons, I urge all members of the House to support the expanded voting opportunities bill.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you indicated, I'm here with Greg Yost from the criminal law policy section and Corporal Evan Graham from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I just want to make sure you know that he's not here for my protection; he's here for your edification. I want to make that clear at the outset.

I'm pleased to appear before you again as you begin consideration of Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I note that the bill received the support of all parties in the House, but that a number of members have expressed various concerns and look forward to the standing committee's hearings during which experts should be able to respond to their questions.

I want to reiterate that the government is open to consideration of any amendments that are consistent with the scope and principle of this bill and that you consider would strengthen the bill.

As you know, the bill deals with three components: drug impaired driving, defences to a charge of driving with blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams, and amendments that respond to various problems in the Criminal Code's impaired driving provisions.

With respect to drug impaired driving, I should indicate that the provisions of Bill C-32 are almost identical to Bill C-16 as it was amended by the standing committee in the last Parliament. It will provide the legislative framework for the drug recognition expert or the DRE program.

Canada is actually behind some countries, including the United States, in this particular field. Since 1984, for instance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the United States has supported a drug recognition expert training program, which was initially developed by the Los Angeles, California, police department. DRE training has been validated through both laboratory and field studies conducted by Johns Hopkins University.

In 1987, the highway safety committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police was requested by the NHTSA to participate in the development of a national expansion of drug recognition experts, as well as to oversee certifying of the DREs. It took until 1992 for all the work to be done on the first set of IACP standards to be adopted. Those standards have been revised over the years based on the advice of medical and other experts.

In Canada, DRE-certified officers only use DRE where a suspect voluntarily participates in the testing. Once our legislation authorizing police to make DRE demands is in place, we expect Canada to continue to look to the IACP process to ensure we are always using the most up-to-date, scientifically validated practices and procedures.

Of course my officials and I are not the experts on the pharmacology of various drugs, their effects on the ability of a person to drive, or how long the drug lingers in the body, but we will endeavour to respond to any questions that members have. I'm pleased to have a couple of experts with me.

I would point out that we have been guided by the advice of the drugs and driving committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science. In 1999, when it was examining the impaired driving provisions, it suggested that there was a need to have legislative demands to perform sobriety tests and DRE evaluations.

Some members of this committee are likely familiar with the DRE program from previous hearings. Therefore, I will outline just the main steps.

First, the officer must suspect the presence of a drug in the body before demanding sobriety tests. That suspicion could be based on a number of factors, including the smell of marijuana or physical symptoms such as eyes that do not react normally to light. This is similar to the suspicion of alcohol in the body based on the smell of alcohol or watery eyes, which is the requirement for a demand for a breath test on a screening device at roadside.

Second, it is only if the driver has failed the roadside sobriety test that the officer can demand further tests at the police station. That the driver is unable to walk a straight line or stand on one foot and hold the other six inches off the ground--the usual tests--the officer now has reasonable grounds to believe that the impairment may be caused by a drug or a combination of drugs and alcohol. This is similar to the officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is impaired by alcohol can take the person to the station for a breath test, the result of which can be used in court.

I believe that members will agree that a person who can't perform the simple roadside sobriety tests should not be driving. If the impairment is caused by alcohol or a drug, the person's impairment is a criminal act. The person has voluntarily consumed a substance that reduces his or her ability to drive.

If the impairment is caused by a medical condition, the person will be sent for medical attention. It is then a matter for provincial driver licensing authorities.

The DRE-trained officer will examine the person and have the person perform certain prescribed tests, including, for example, eye examinations in different lighting, muscle tone, blood pressure, and pulse. Before the DRE expert can demand that a bodily substance be analyzed for the presence of a drug, the expert will have formed the opinion that the person's ability is impaired by a family of drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol.

Third, the analysis of a bodily sample will either confirm or refute the presence of the drug that the DRE has identified as causing the impairment. This is a check on the officer's identification of the involvement of a specific drug family.

Ultimately the court will have before it evidence of erratic driving or behaviour, failure to complete simple physical coordination tests, a DRE report on the physical symptoms observed that lead to the conclusion the impairment is caused by a family of drugs, and proof by analysis that the person had the drugs in his or her body. It's my understanding that the courts in Canada have found that sufficient evidence to found a conviction in cases where the DRE has proceeded with the voluntary participation of a driver. What Bill C-32 will do is compel the person to participate in the physical coordination tests and in the DRE process.

I now turn to the current use of evidence to the contrary in the courts. I note that during the debate at second reading, reforms we are proposing received strong support. In particular, Mr. Comartin, who has studied this issue quite extensively and has seen the consequences of impaired driving, has said a number of times that the way the two-beer defence has been used is almost a “scandal”.

I agree with him. A two-beer defence is a scandal. It may have had merit in an era when breath test instruments used a needle that had to be read by a technician and the results written down. But with modern electronic instruments that have built-in operability checks and that print out the results, these reasons to accept a two-beer defence no longer apply. The two-beer defence makes all the care that goes into testing and approving instruments, and training operators to use them, close to a waste of time.

One question that was raised was whether it was appropriate for the Criminal Code to restrict the kind of evidence that can be brought forward. I can tell you that Parliament has done so in the past--for example, in the rape shield provisions that restrict the cross-examination of a victim of sexual assault regarding past sexual conduct. It is altogether appropriate, therefore, for Parliament to limit the evidence to the contrary to evidence that has scientific merit. The accused will still be able to bring evidence of consumption, but unless there is evidence either that the approved instrument was malfunctioning or was not operating properly, the evidence of consumption will only be relevant if it is compatible both with the BAC recorded on the instrument and also with the person being under 80 milligrams at the time of driving--for example, because the person had a drink after the driving and before the testing.

I would like to refer to a few other particularly notable reforms proposed by Bill C-32. The bill proposes to increase the current penalties in several ways. I think the higher minimum of $1,000 for a first offence, up from the current $600, reflects the seriousness of the crime. We also propose to come down harder on the repeat impaired driver by increasing the mandatory terms of imprisonment, including raising from 90 to 120 days the minimum for a third-time offender.

We do not believe it is appropriate--and I trust the committee will agree--for a person who has two previous convictions to be able to seek to serve the sentence on an intermittent basis, as they now do. Moreover, we are proposing that the maximum term of imprisonment, if the prosecution proceeds summarily, be increased from six to 18 months.

Our provincial colleagues tell us that there are currently many cases where they will ask for more than six months of imprisonment. They have to proceed by indictment, a more serious and more expensive procedure, even though they know they will not be seeking more than 18 months. Eighteen months' maximum on a summary conviction is the same as that provided for a number of offences, including uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, and forcible confinement. So the government believes that the threat of harm caused by the impaired driver merits the same maximum punishment on summary convictions as those offences.

In addition, the bill proposes creating new offences of being over 80 milligrams or refusing to provide a breath sample and causing bodily harm or death. These new offences reflect the general approach of the Criminal Code to treat impaired...or being over 80 milligrams and refusal in the same manner.

Currently the Criminal Code only has the offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm or death. In an accident situation, there may be no direct evidence of the person's driving. The symptoms ordinarily used to indicate impairment, such as being unsteady on one's feet, may be attributed to the effects of the accident. There is, therefore, an incentive for the person involved in an accident not to provide a breath sample, and because the certificate establishing BAC can be crucial evidence to establish that the person's ability to drive was in fact impaired....

I believe Bill C-32 is a balanced legislation that will greatly assist the police, prosecutors, and the courts in dealing with impaired drivers. I urge the committee to deal with it expeditiously.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I'd be pleased to answer any questions that the committee may have.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I would not do that.

Tomorrow is an allotted day.

Next week is constituent consultation week, when the House will be adjourned to allow members to return to their ridings and meet with constituents to share with them the activities of Parliament since the last constituency break.

For the interest of members, I will quickly review our plan for the context of our overall legislative agenda.

As he requested, this is currently strengthening the economy week, where a number of financial bills moved forward. The budget bill was sent to committee and, hopefully, it will be reported back tomorrow, or soon, so we can deal with it at third reading when the House returns after the break.

Bill C-40, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, was read a third time and sent to the Senate. Bill C-53, an act to implement the convention on the settlement of investment disputes, Bill C-33, the sales tax bill and Bill C-47, the Olympics symbol bill were all sent to committee and we all would like to see those back in the House for report stage and third reading.

In an earlier week, Bill C-36, the bill that makes changes to the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act, was made into law after receiving royal assent.

Strengthening accountability through democratic reform week was a success with the consideration of Bill C-43, Senate consultation. We had three new democratic reform bills introduced that week: Bill C-55, to expand voting opportunities; Bill C-56, an act to amend the Constitution Act, democratic representation; and Bill C-54, a bill that would bring accountability with respect to loans. We hope to continue debate on that particular bill later today.

Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections, was given royal assent and is now law, which I think is the cause of the commotion now in all the committees where Liberals are using procedural tactics. Now they feel they can do it with a free hand.

Two other democratic reform bills are in the Senate, Bill C-31, voter integrity, and Bill S-4, Senate tenure. I really would like to have the term limits bill from the Senate for an upcoming democratic reform week if the opposition House leader can persuade his colleagues in the Senate to finally deal with that bill after 352 days. We may get 352 seconds in a filibuster, but they have had 352 days so far. They have been stalling for a year.

During the consultation week, I will be interested in hearing what our constituents think of the plight of Bill S-4 and the irony of those unaccountable senators delaying it.

We dedicated a good deal of our time focusing on making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime. Now that we have had the help of the NDP, we restored the meaningful aspects that the Liberals gutted in committee to Bill C-10, the bill to introduce mandatory penalties for violent and gun crimes. We are continuing to debate that bill today at third reading.

Bill C-48, the bill dealing with the United Nations convention on corruption, was adopted at all stages.

Bill C-26, the bill to amend the Criminal Code with respect to interest rates, was given royal assent.

Bill C-22, the age of protection, was given final reading and sent to the Senate, although it did spend close to, if not in excess of, 200 days in committee where the Liberals were obstructing and delaying its passage.

We made progress on Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation. We would like to see that back in the House.

Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment) and a host of other justice bills are working their way through the system.

Members can advise their constituents that when we return, we will be reviving two themes, back by popular demand. Beginning May 28, we will begin again with strengthening accountability through democratic reform with: Bill C-54, political loans; Bill C-55, additional opportunities for voting; and Bill C-56, democratic representation.

Up next is a second go-round on strengthening the economy week with Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill, which will be called as soon as it is reported back from committee.

In the near future, we will have the improvement of aboriginal people quality of life week with Bill C-44. This bill will grant first nations residing on Indian reserves access to the Canadian charter of human rights. They have been denied this right for 30 years. Unfortunately, Bill C-44 is being delayed by the opposition. This is another bill being delayed by the opposition in committee.

After Bill C-44, I intend to debate Bill C-51. The agreement establishes the use and ownership of land and resources and will foster economic development. This bill illustrates Canada's commitment to the North and to settling land claims.

I wish all members a productive constituent consultation week and look forward to more progress on the government's legislative agenda when the House returns on May 28.

Canada Elections Act

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-54, which focuses on creating further restrictions on the use of loans for political entities.

I understand the bill, if passed, will amend the pre-existing rules of the Canada Elections Act. This is legislation that touches on the national discussion of democratic reform, a discussion that has always been of great interest for all members of this House and, indeed, for many constituents across my riding of Churchill.

As some members in the House may know, the Churchill riding is a very northern riding in Manitoba and it covers more than half of the province of Manitoba. It reflects rural Canada and aboriginal Canadians, including first nations and the Métis nation.

Canadians expect their members of Parliament to be continuously working to find ways to enhance our nation's democracy. As parliamentarians, we must work together to foster a nation that values both civic responsibility and empowerment. These virtues are the centre of any debate on democratic reform.

Bill C-54 purports to establish a uniform and transparent reporting regime for all loans to political entities, including mandatory disclosure of terms and the identity of all lenders and loan guarantors.

Strangely enough, the government's proposed provisions already exist in the current law.

The legislation is also designed to tighten rules of treatment of unpaid loans to ensure candidates cannot walk away from unpaid loans. This does not represent a substantive change to the law as, once again, there are already provisions in place to ensure that loans cannot be written off without consequence. Political riding associations would ultimately be held responsible for unpaid loans taken out by their candidates.

This would allow only financial institutions and other political entities to make loans beyond the annual contribution limit for individuals, and only at commercial rates of interest, although the current law already requires all loans to be made at commercial rates of interest. Under the proposed legislation, unions and corporations would now be unable to make loans and financial institutions could not lend money at rates of interest other than the market norm.

While it seems that the government intended to increase transparency with this bill, the shortcomings of the bill, as it is currently laid out, are such that it would do nothing to increase accountability. Instead, Bill C-54 would build new roadblocks that would restrict the access Canadians have to the democratic process.

If passed as is, the legislation would give financial institutions the full say on who gets to run for political office in Canada rather than Canadians.

In line with the Conservatives' trends of discriminatory policies, the bill would negatively impact many Canadians, especially people in my riding, including first nations, minority candidates and, I believe, women for nomination. Canada is at the point in our history where the government should be continuing the Liberal legacies of encouraging greater participation in the democratic process. The government must celebrate our diversity through political empowerment rather than design laws that would hinder one's ability to run for public office.

The proposed changes would make it very difficult for Canadians, especially those of limited means and those with limited contact to potential wealthy contributors to even seek nomination in Canada because of the challenge of securing loans from banking institutions. I am curious as to whether the members opposite were intentionally doing this or perhaps it is an aspect of the bill that they merely overlooked. Either case, I think it is a question worthy of further exploration.

I also want to add that under Liberal leadership in this country, the government passed legislation that limited the roles of corporations and unions in electoral financing and introduced the most dramatic lowering of contribution limits in Canadian history.

The key difference between limiting the role of corporate and union contributions in political campaigns and limiting loans in the manner that the government has introduced is a matter of equity. I feel that their proposed approach would be regressive. Given this opportunity to advance this debate, we should seize the opportunity to democratize our institutions where available.

For some, the window of opportunity to influence policy may only come once every four year. Since the passing of Bill C-16, the next scheduled time Canadians will have the ability to voice their opinion for policy change will be in October 2009. This is not to say that the federal election will occur on that date but rather that it is theoretically conceivable.

Our democracy is an institution of the people and in order for such an institution to be truly meaningful it must be truly accessible, regardless of gender, race and social status. With this in mind, we need legislation that will address these demands for all Canadians.

I look forward to hearing other members' perspectives on this debate and observing how it unfolds in the near future.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, this week is strengthening accountability through democratic reform week. It has been a busy week for the democratic reform family of bills.

We sent out invitations for the first birthday of Bill S-4, the Senate tenure bill, which Liberal senators have been delaying for almost a year now.

While we are disappointed with the behaviour of Bill S-4's caregivers, we did have some good news this week with the successful delivery of two new members of the family: Bill C-54, a bill to bring accountability with respect to loans; and Bill C-55, a bill to expand voting opportunities.

There is more good news. We are expecting.

Tomorrow, I will be introducing an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, on democratic representation, which is on today's notice paper.

Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections, was finally allowed by the clingy Liberal-dominated Senate to leave the nest when it was given royal assent last week.

With respect to the schedule of debate, we will continue today with the opposition motion.

Friday, we conclude strengthening accountability through democratic reform week with debate on the loans bill, possibly the Senate consultation bill and, hopefully, Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill.

Next week will be strengthening the economy week, when we will focus on helping individuals, families and businesses get ahead.

Beginning Monday, and continuing through the week, the House will consider: Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill; Bill C-33 to improve our income tax system; Bill C-40, to improve the sales tax system; Bill C-53, relating to investment disputes; and Bill C-47, the Olympics bill, which help us have a successful Olympics. Hopefully, we can get to Bill C-41, the Competition Act.

If time permits, we will also call for third and final reading Bill C-10, the minimum mandatory sentencing bill.

Thursday, May 17 shall be an allotted day.

Wednesday, May 16, shall be the day appointed, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), for the purpose of consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Canadian Heritage of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.

Thursday, May 17, shall be the day appointed for the purpose of consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under National Defence of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.

Finally, there is an agreement with respect to the debate tomorrow on the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 scheduled for tomorrow be deemed to have taken place and all questions necessary to dispose of the motion to concur in the 13th Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, May 16, 2007, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

Canada Elections Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I should begin my comments on Bill C-54 by recognizing and paying tribute to the former leader of the New Democratic Party who most recently sat in the riding of Ottawa Centre, because it was he who blew the whistle on the fact that the political donation regime in this country left a loophole that was so outrageous it was bound to be exploited and abused.

Mr. Broadbent had the sense to recognize that even though the amounts of money that can be donated to a political campaign or to a political party had been reduced, by allowing these huge loans, which never really have to be paid back, it was obvious that somebody with a lack of ethical standards would take advantage of that loophole and would begin to act as if there were no financial limitations. I recognize Mr. Broadbent for raising this issue for us in his ethics package.

I am gratified that today we are dealing with a bill in the House of Commons that will close this last remaining loophole, one of the most serious loopholes in our election financing laws, because we start with the basic premise that nobody should be able to buy an election in this country, or a politician, for that matter. When we are dealing with such massive amounts of money, the point that was made by the House leader of the government was that a politician or a political party is going to owe somebody a great deal. They are going to owe somebody an obligation, a debt, and it is not healthy for the interests of democracy to have some corporate sponsor pulling the strings of politicians through this enormous debt of gratitude that is owed. That is the fundamental principle here. That is the direction in which we believed we needed to go.

These loans were a loophole that simply had to be plugged. The most egregious example, I suppose, and what really caught the public's imagination, was during the Liberal leadership campaign. Even though businesses and unions were not allowed to donate a single dollar, they could loan tens of thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and individuals could loan far in excess of what they were allowed to donate.

Then, through the very loosey-goosey standards and rules that exist in terms of the repayment of those loans, if the loan was not paid back within 18 months it was deemed to be a donation, albeit an illegal donation. We allowed this contradiction to exist in our election finance regime. Some would say it was by design that the rules put in place by the previous government to put limits on election financing left this convenient loophole there, with it knowing full well their people would stumble upon it, seize on it and use it.

The other example that turned people's heads and simply sounded the alarm that this had to be addressed was the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. Even though a business is not allowed to donate anything and a union is not allowed to donate anything, his business loaned the Mississauga--Streetsville riding association $176,000 in one loan, I believe it was, and another $60,000 in another loan.

How can that be? It is a contradiction that we have allowed to evolve, because if that loan is not paid back within the 18 months, it is deemed to be a donation, and then we will have allowed a business to make a donation, which it is not allowed to at all, and a donation in the amount of a quarter of a million dollars, which is clearly in excess of anything contemplated when we set the donation limits for individuals at $1,100 per year.

This had to be done. I do take some recognition of the fact that we played a role in bringing this about. It was the NDP that moved this as an amendment during the Federal Accountability Act debates, but I also caution that we perhaps have not gone as far as we could. There are two things in the bill that worry me somewhat.

Even though we cannot pass legislation retroactively to give us some satisfaction on the debacle of the Liberal leadership loans or the loan of the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, we can have legislation that is retrospective in nature. We can look at ways to address these loans that drew the public's attention to this issue to make sure there is some compliance with at least the existing regime.

The second thing that we find fault with regarding this legislation is we cannot understand for the life of us why the date of implementation will be six months after the bill receives royal assent. My colleague, the government House leader, suggested that perhaps there is a way we could speak to the Chief Electoral Officer and garner support for the idea of a more rapid implementation date. I would urge the government to do so, because as the bill is currently drafted, it is possible we could have another federal election under the current set of rules which allow these political loans.

Now that it is common knowledge that there is no law against lending someone $100,000, even though the donation limit is only $1,100, a lot more people will be doing it if it is allowed. It would be morally and ethically wrong to allow another federal election to take place under the current set of rules. Therefore, I would urge members when the bill gets to committee, to look favourably on the idea of an amendment, which we would be happy to put forward, that the date of implementation should be when the bill receives royal assent.

This is much in the same spirit that we looked at the Federal Accountability Act. We did not see any reason to delay the implementation of the election financing rules associated with the accountability act, even though the Liberal Party urged us strenuously to delay and delay and delay because the Liberals wanted to get their leadership convention out of the way. That is certainly one of the things we would like to see.

I heard my colleague from the Liberal Party try to make arguments against this bill. Even though I do not take this remark seriously, I do give him credit for at least having the courage to try to be creative to find some reason why this bill is a bad idea.

I do have to counter one of the arguments he made which was completely spurious. He suggested that by banning these loans or putting severe limits on these loans, it would actually act as a barrier to those who do not have access to friends with money from entering into politics. It is like arguing night is day, because that is absolutely 180 degrees the polar opposite of what any cursory reading of the bill would tell us. In actual fact, the idea is to take big money out of politics and to take away the unfair competitive advantage that people who are well connected currently enjoy. The idea is to level the playing field.

That was the purpose of Bill C-24, which the Liberals introduced when they first put limits on donations. The idea was to get big money out of politics so that nobody could buy influence. That was certainly the argument put forward under Bill C-2 when we further reduced the donation limits to $1,100.

It is courageous to argue that this is actually the inverse. It takes a lot of guts to stand there and try to make that argument, but we cannot let that go unchallenged. If anything, this is an enabling measure that does level the playing field so that all of us, if we need to borrow money to get our campaign started, have to go to a recognized lending institution. No single person would be able to underwrite or co-sign a loan to an extent greater than the person would be allowed to donate in that year. It is eminently sensible because if there is a default on that loan and the loan becomes deemed to be a donation later on, then the donation would not be in excess of what the person would have been allowed to donate. It seems common sense to me.

A further innovation and protection here is that we do not want the precedent set by Paul Hellyer and the Canadian Action Party to set the tone. In that case, he simply wrote off the $800,000 debt to the Canadian Action Party. We do not want to see John Rae writing off the debt to Bob Rae. We do not want to see Mr. Mamdouh Stephanos writing off the $200,000 debt which was loaned to the leader of the official opposition. That would be fundamentally wrong because then those guys would have made a $200,000 loan which became a donation which they then forgave. Talk about buying influence in a campaign. What about the $100,000 that Marc de la Bruyere loaned to the leader of the official opposition?

We have every reason to believe that the leader of the official opposition will probably pay back those debts because he will have the ability to fundraise within the $1,000 limit and because he is in a fishbowl and everybody is watching what he is going to do with his campaign debts.

What about the losers in that race? For instance, I used the example of John Rae, a senior executive with Power Corporation, being able to simply write off and forgive the $840,000 that he loaned to his brother, Bob, to run in that campaign. That would be a travesty. That would be an absolute abuse of the election financing laws as we know them today.

With this bill, it is deemed that if the loan is not paid back in an acceptable period of time, or the time frame negotiated between the lender, a bank, and the borrower, or 18 months, whichever comes first, it would be the riding association and the political party of the riding association that would have to assume that debt. That would make sense. In fact it would help from an equity point of view for the person borrowing the money, because the person is actually borrowing the money with the guarantor of the political party that the person belongs to. The financial institution would have some comfort. The person would not have to find a financial backer to co-sign that loan; in fact, the person would not be allowed to.

If, as I have done, one needed to borrow $20,000 to get the campaign started, one would need to find 20 guarantors at $1,000 each. No one person could co-sign the loan. That is the way it should be. If the person cannot find 20 people to sponsor his or her entry into politics, perhaps that person should rethink whether he or she should be going into politics or not because the person is not going to get very far anyway.

I think this is eminently fair. It has covered the three conditions that the NDP raised during the debate on the Federal Accountability Act. I completely reject the Liberals' argument that there could be perverse consequences which would limit entry into politics.

Again my colleague from Vancouver Quadra very cleverly planted the idea that perhaps Equal Voice would be disappointed with this initiative, as if this would somehow be a barrier for more women to enter politics. I would argue that the absolute inverse would be true, because this will level the playing field so that well-connected people with corporate sponsorship, like we saw in the Liberal leadership race, will not have a competitive advantage over a woman without those connections. Again it levels the playing field. We have not had any indication how Equal Voice would react to this bill, but from what I know of the people in that organization, I think they would support this idea.

I wish we would not reform the election financing regime in such a piecemeal fashion. There are a number of other things that the NDP has been calling for. One I will speak to briefly is that now that Bill C-16 has passed very quietly and without fanfare over in the other place, it is now law and we have fixed election dates, I believe we should have year-round spending limits. Now that we know elections will be held every four years on a fixed date in the month of October, there should be some regulation on the amount parties can spend on advertising not just during the writ period but outside the writ period as well. That is a necessary natural consequence of having fixed election dates. I would look forward to some movement from the government in that regard.

I also wish we had done something about the age of political donors. I am very critical of the idea that we can actually launder money through our children's bank accounts in a way to exceed the donation limits allowed by law. That seems to be acceptable in that when it happened in the Liberal leadership race and we filed complaints with the elections commissioner, nothing came of it.

I guess if an 11 year old wants to donate $5,000 to a political candidate, nobody thinks twice. When it is twins and they both decide to donate $5,400 each to the same candidate, nobody thinks twice. Throughout the whole country Canadians shook their heads when they saw that. I would like to see us have the courage to move forward and say that this is simply wrong.

It is wrong to launder money through anybody's bank account if the purpose is to defraud the system and exceed the donation limits allowed by law, whether it is one's mother-in-law or brother. A person is not allowed to donate the maximum himself or herself and then sneak a cheque under the table to his or her buddy and say, “Send this along to the Liberal Party for me too”. It is against the law to conspire to defraud the system. We are silent on that and even when we file complaints on that, the elections commissioner seems to be silent on it.

The NDP tried to move an amendment to Bill C-2 which said that underage people could donate money, but if they did, it would be deducted from the total amount their legal guardian was allowed to donate. In other words, if a 14 year old felt strongly enough about politics and wanted to donate $100 of the money he or she earned at the burger joint, more power to him or her, but that meant the child's parents or legal guardians would donate $100 less that year. If people get a tax advantage from being children's legal guardians, they have to be legal guardians in this era of politics unless and until the children reach legal age as well. That would have been a courageous move and would have cleaned up one of those embarrassing situations that we allow in our system currently.

Let me speak briefly about the outstanding issue that we are all worried about, which is the issue of the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, who is not a Liberal any more, but when the loans took place he was. Now he is a Tory.

I do not know how we are going to address this, but we should remind everybody, and maybe through this speech we will serve notice, that no one's sweetheart can bail out somebody like that. If someone borrows $50,000, as many of the people did in the Liberal leadership campaign, and it is not paid back quickly, the candidate cannot pay it off because he or she would be exceeding the limit. The candidate cannot have a guardian angel donor show up out of nowhere and bail him or her out. The money has to be paid back within the donation limits.

The money was raised within the donation limits of the act, which is $1,100 per year. I do not see how some of these candidates are going to do so. The burden of proof is on them to pay it back in compliance with the law. Some of these failed leadership candidates are now raising money for the next federal election and they are still asking people for money to pay off the debt they incurred.

As I say, it is not that tough for the winner to pay off the debt. It is a lot tougher for the losers, the ones who did not win. It has to be the $1,000 limit. We are watching. These people are in a fishbowl and we will be filing complaints. If they do not pay it back at all and it is deemed to be a donation, then what? I will tell the House what.

Under the current election laws, and this should be fixed too, they can take out another loan to pay off the first loan and buy themselves another 18 months. Then the debt gets lost in the sands of time and we will have been complicit with somebody conspiring to defraud the election system. Those are the people on this list that I have right here.

Some of the people in the Liberal leadership campaign might find themselves in that situation. It would be wrong, but they may be leaning that way and our Elections Act is not tough enough to stop that from happening. I was disappointed, in fact I was shocked to learn that would be allowed, that they could take out a second loan to pay off the first loan and buy themselves another 18 months. Who is going to be around to police whether the second loan gets paid off three or five years down the road? This is really not satisfactory.

If we are serious about levelling the playing field, about taking big money out of politics and about making sure that nobody can buy an election in this country, we have to go all the way. We should put together an election financing regime that we can all be proud of. We could be an international centre of excellence. That would make me proud.

I take some pride, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that it was the former leader of our party, the hon. Ed Broadbent, who brought this issue to light and said, more or less, that no further federal elections should take place until we clean up the election financing regime in this country. The NDP tried to do it during the debate on the Federal Accountability Act. It seemed to take a little longer than we thought to resonate with the ruling party, but it seemed to have at least accepted the need for this now.

We are critical that there will be a six month wait after the bill receives royal assent. We expect this to get a rough ride from the Liberal Party. I am not trying to state the obvious, but if one cannot raise or borrow money, one is not going to be in any hurry to pass this bill.

We hope the Liberals do not stall it unnecessarily, but I think the government should act quickly to take that six month proviso out of the way, implement it as soon as we can, and get it through the House, so that the next federal election can be run with equal opportunity for everybody and that no unfair competitive advantage go to those who might enjoy a corporate sponsor or guardian angel donor.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Liberal opposition and address Bill C-54. I must say at the outset that the government House leader was not able or willing to answer my earlier question about the disclosure of the Prime Minister's leadership funders in 2002.

He did not address that topic, but I think this House needs to know that, particularly in relation to the comments that the government House leader made about the open disclosure of all loans, of all lenders and all amounts by the Liberal leadership contenders last year. Clearly they were acting beyond what the Canada Elections Act required, in good faith and with full disclosure. Everybody knows both what is going on there and the rules that apply to it.

As for the Prime Minister bringing forth this legislation, I think the government House leader suggests that he is somehow on the road to Damascus, leading this House in some epiphany in terms of loans and the way they are treated. Perhaps he was waylaid, misled or turned around and is actually on the road to perdition, because this bill of course has a perverse consequence. It is a non-accountability act. Again, it is Orwellian in many of the impacts that it will have. I will take some time to explain exactly why this will make democracy weaker in many ways in our country if it goes ahead as it is written, without amendment.

The Liberal Party is certainly very much in favour of transparency and accountability and will be looking toward a bill that properly and effectively tightens up the application and the use of loans in political financing in this country wherever it might be necessary. However, we certainly will also want to ensure that as the bill goes forward the proper amendments are made so that it does not, whether consciously or unconsciously, create a barrier to entry to the political process for those who do not have access to funds or friends who have access to funds, or to financial institutions that reflect their willingness to give loans because they realize that these people already have money, or they have people who will sign for them and back them up with money. We have to be very careful that this is not a barrier.

Let me go back to January 2004, when the former Liberal government brought in the most dramatic changes to electoral financing in this country's history with Bill C-24, and indeed perhaps the most dramatic change than had happened in any democratic jurisdiction in the world, which of course reduced the union and corporation donation limits per year to a mere $1,000. That is almost meaningless when we are talking about a nation this size. To suggest that a $1,000 donation by a corporation could buy favour across this country in an electoral process is beyond imagination. In any case, we effectively took that out and left the donations at a $5,000 level for individual members of the public, who are of course the basic building block and the basic unit of democracy. That is where it should be. That was an extremely important step. It was a dramatic step in the political history of this country.

Bill C-24 also did some other things. It introduced an aspect of proportional representation. I know that many members in the House in all parties are interested in seeing us proceed with consultations and consideration of that. However, when the private money was taken out to such a dramatic degree, Bill C-24 provided for public funding of electoral processes by providing $1.75 for every vote that any party received in the general election nationwide.

That allowed for a proportionality that corrected some of the difficulties with the first past the post process, where often the number of seats in this House achieved by parties bears very little relation to the proportion of the vote they get. As an example, the Green Party got 600,000 votes in the last election. Under that provision, it received over $1 million, which allows its members to express the views of the people who voted for them through the financing of their political activity, although not yet representation, across the country. That is a first tentative but important step. It was part of that groundbreaking electoral financing legislation.

Let me correct a perception that the government House leader gave, which was incorrect. He suggested there were no rules now covering loans and the disclosure of loans. In fact, the current statutory provisions require the disclosure of all loans. They require the disclosure of the lenders and the guarantors of those loans.

Another misconception is that there are no consequences if these loans can be written off. In fact, there are consequences. Those loans must be repaid within an 18 month period or they fall under the political contribution rules, which are very strict.

It is not a way to have money given. It is money loaned for a period during an electoral process, either a leadership process, as was involved last year with the Liberal leadership, or perhaps a nomination process where someone does not have access to party funds or riding association funds. If people were unable to take a loan, that might well be a barrier to entry into the political process for people who were not of independent means. There are consequences. Those must be converted and that is an important aspect to it.

Who owns the Prime Minister? The government House leader raised the issue of the Liberal leadership candidates and the influence of big money, but we still have not had an answer about who financed the leadership bid of the Prime Minister in 2002.

Why do we want to know that? We want to know that for the very reason the government suggests we need the bill. We already have provisions in the Canada Elections Act that cover both disclosure of loans and repayment of loans and consequence if we do not. In any event, why do we want to know? It is an immensely important question. Is it U.S. gun lobby? Is it big oil? Who made those contributions to the Prime Minister's leadership race in 2002? We will come back to that until we get a proper answer, until the Canadian people get a proper answer. These are important issues.

Let me talk about the name of the act, the accountability with respect to loans act. It could be called the new Conservative bank of Canada act. It is big money that would get more influence because of the way the act is written currently. We will seek amendments to ensure it does not simply limit the influence that can be exerted to those with money or have access to big money. Let me tell members why.

Financial institutions are the only ones that can make big loans to individuals. If people are maybe from a disadvantaged group or an under-represented group who have not been in politics before, who seek a nomination in a riding, those people do not have independent wealth, they do not have a riding association yet to loan them funds, as is allowable under this bill, and they do not have, perhaps, credit worthiness to go to a bank. What does that person do? The individual is left out. They simply cannot, effectively. With the limits under this, there is a barrier to entry into the nomination process.

If we look at the Liberal leadership process that went for nine months of fulsome discussion and debate across the country, presenting 11 candidates for scrutiny by the public in a highly open and democratic process, those were expensive. We cannot do that in a country the size of Canada without having some funds to expend for it.

Those should be under rules, and there are rules. There may be some tightening up that the bill can do, and that is fine. However, to say that people taking out loans so they can exercise their right to take part in the democratic electoral process for leadership, for nomination, is going down the wrong road.

In fact, the bill, as written, does not, as Bill C-24 previously did, take out corporate money and put in public money that was properly and evenly distributed according to the proportion of the vote achieved by each party that ran candidates. This cuts out the public and brings in the big money.

Who can get a loan from a bank, from a financial institution? It is someone with a lot of money or property to put up as collateral, or someone to co-sign or support the loan. Those are people of influence and money. This is letting the money in. It is not keeping the money out. That is what we will have to see. I look forward to working with members of the Bloc, the NDP and the government to see if we can get some amendments so we do not create a barrier to entry for people who have no means and are not yet part of the political process. That transparency is immensely important.

We have an organization called Equal Voice. All members of the House will be well aware of and knowledgeable about it. The organization seeks to encourage women to enter the political process so we can rise above the deplorable disproportion of men to women in the House of Commons, with 20% representation by women.

The leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Liberal Party, has pledged that in the next election one-third of the Liberal candidates will be women. We are well on the way in the nomination process to achieving that. This is a demonstrative move to try to get a proper proportion of gender equity into the House.

If this goes to committee, I am sure Equal Voice, representing all parties and all people across the political spectrum, will be very interested to come to talk the committee and to give evidence, as will many other groups who represent disadvantaged or under-represented sectors of this society. They will want to come and give their evidence on it. I hope we will take instruction from them as to how, perhaps unintentionally, the unavoidable consequence of this will be, to exert more power, not less, in those who have access to large amounts of funds.

This new Conservative bank of Canada act is interesting. It may tighten up the rules a little. It is not so that the Canada Elections Act now does not require loans to be repaid or be converted into contributions under the very restrictive rules. It is not so that contributors, lenders or co-signers do not have to be disclosed for political loans. They do have to be.

I am as anxious as anyone else in the House to see that this process is not abused, and if we can tighten it up, all the better. However, we have to ensure there are no unintended consequences of creating barriers to disadvantaged and under-represented groups.

The government House leader took some time to describe a number of what were called democratic reform bills, or statutes, in the House as brought forward by the Conservative government, and it is worth talking about a few of those.

One is Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act. Members of the House and the committee of the House spent a great deal of time on this as did members of the Senate. In fact, unencumbered by a set deadline that was forced on the House committee in the House, the Senate put forward dozens of amendments through its careful review of that act, even under the constant shrill criticism of the government that it was slowing things down.

Regarding slowing things down, royal assent was given to the Federal Accountability Act on December 15, 2006. Here we are, almost five months later, and one of the central parts of that act was the appointments commission. Amendments by the NDP sharpened that up. We had two choices. The Liberal opposition put forward amendments. The NDP put forward amendments. All of them would have been effective, and will be effective, as it was finally passed, but all these months later, all of these appointments later, dozens of them, and we still do not have the appointments commission. This was one of the key things that was said by the government to be so important about the Federal Accountability Act. We do not even have a commission.

We continue without the proper controls. We had suggested that the Public Service Commission take over this role, that there be amendments to its mandate to apply the same rules, competitive process and objective criteria used in the public service for any order in council appointments, but we still do not have that.

I would be very interested to hear from the government when it is going to proceed with that important part of Bill C-2. There were so many complaints about it being delayed when in fact there were a very large number of responsible, thoughtful and careful amendments suggested by the Senate, and actually passed into law.

Bill C-16 deals with fixed dates. We supported that on this side of the House. There was no delay. There was careful consideration in the Senate. There was a thoughtful amendment put forward. It was brought back to the House with that amendment. We on this side offered the government, before the Easter recess, to pass the bill through all processes in the House, back to the Senate, hopefully, for royal assent in the day before we broke. That was rejected. We would have needed unanimous consent, but we did not get it from the government.

Bill C-43 was mentioned by the government House leader. It is not a Senate elections act; it is a consultation act, with provincial elections. It is being put forward as a great democratic reform. I think all members of the House believe, as do probably all members of the other place, that the Senate needs reform in becoming a fully democratic legislative chamber, and we should all work toward that. This is going at it piecemeal. We get criticisms of trying to block the incremental reform of the Senate, but the fact is it all fits together and it must be dealt with at once.

There are three critical aspects of the Senate that have to be considered together.

One aspect is the selection process, which could include elections or involve terms. The term limit is suggested in Bill S-4.

Another aspect is the mandate. In the future how does the mandate relate to the mandate of the House of Commons? Will it be a mirror legislative body with the same electoral validity that will then lead to gridlock. We have to do to deal with that area of comprehensive reform is to have some kind of dispute resolution mechanism whenever the legislative powers mirror each other in the House and the other place.

Then we have the distribution. We cannot do anything else with the Senate until we work out the distribution. It is amazing that the Prime Minister, and all members of the government, would consider doing something to give a greater validity, greater power to the Senate without fixing the very unfair, inequitable distribution of seats to western Canada, particularly to British Columbia and Alberta.

For all of us from British Columbia and Alberta, it is extraordinary that we might think of increasing the power of that body without fixing the horrible lack of fair distribution to western Canada.

Bert Brown has been mentioned in the House by the Prime Minister as being the senator in waiting, to be appointed sometime this summer. He has played a very important role in the political life of Canada. He did not play that role by plowing one E into his barley field or a wheat field. He plowed three E's into it. To try to deal with just one E at once in a piecemeal incremental way, as the Prime Minister says, is not in the favour of Alberta, from where that fine gentleman comes. Nor is it responsible reform in the comprehensive way to properly bring the Senate into the modern age of a democratic legislative chamber. We have to work together to do that.

We often hear about the ghosts of Meech Lake and the ghosts of Charlottetown. We also hear that we cannot go near the Constitution because, my goodness, we might all get distracted and not be able to do anything else in this country and we will never get anywhere. Thank goodness the Fathers of Confederation were not so shy about dealing with the Constitution. We should take on that responsibility ourselves.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

moved that Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I open the debate today on the accountability with respect to loans bill.

This legislation builds on our groundbreaking Federal Accountability Act in ushering in a modern era of clean politics, an era when it will no longer be acceptable for any political entity, including candidates and leadership contestants, to mortgage themselves to powerful, wealthy individuals. This bill is modern, accountable and realistic and it would strengthen our democracy.

Canada's new government fought the last election campaign on a commitment to eliminate the influence of big money in the political process and, since our very first days in office, we have been delivering on that commitment with an active agenda of meaningful democratic reform.

The Federal Accountability Act brought in tough new campaign finance rules. In it, corporate and union contributions were banned. Anonymous contributions and trust funds were banned. A strict limit on annual donations to a political party of $1,100 was established to put an end to the influence of big money.

With these reforms we have closed the door on those who tried to exert influence by signing large cheques.

It has been said, “Think what you do when you run into debt; you give another power over your liberty”. Unfortunately, last year it became apparent that the Liberal leadership candidates were all too willing to relinquish their liberty by mortgaging themselves to a handful of wealthy individuals.

When Liberal leadership candidates started financing their campaigns with big loans from a few wealthy individuals, Canadians saw that big money had found a back door. It had found a way around the Federal Accountability Act. Big money saw political loans as an opportunity to buy back the influence that the Conservative campaign finance reform had blocked. And they took that opportunity, big money did.

The leader of the official opposition mortgaged himself for almost half a million dollars to rich and powerful people like Rod Bryden and Stephen Bronfman.

Bob Rae accepted a whopping $720,000 from his brother, an executive vice-president and member of the board of directors of Power Corporation. The member for Kings—Hants borrowed big cash to the tune of $200,000 and the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore borrowed almost $.5 million as well, all of it either from wealthy individuals or guaranteed by a handful of powerful interests.

In total, Liberal leadership candidates are on the record as owing over $3 million, almost all of it to wealthy individuals. To put that figure in context, that debt is six times the total amount raised by the entire Liberal Party in the first three months of 2007.

Big money found an easy way to get around the Federal Accountability Act by giving huge sums of money to their favourite candidates and simply calling them loans. I do not think that arrangement sits well with Canadians. It is inconsistent with the spirit of the new Federal Accountability Act that sought to eliminate the undue influence of big money on politics.

Canadian democracy does not breathe easy when the country's leaders owe millions of dollars to a handful of rich and powerful people.

The accountability with respect to loans bill would ensure that politicians are accountable to the people who elect them, not the rich and powerful people who want to bankroll them. Today we are acting decisively to put an end to that kind of old style, backroom politics. With this legislation, our government will kick down the doors of political back rooms and turn the lights on.

The bill would regulate all loans made to political parties, candidates and associations in Canada. The bill would establish a uniform and transparent reporting regime for all loans to political entities. It would require mandatory disclosure of terms and of the identity of all lenders and loan guarantors.

Total loans, loan guarantees and contributions by individuals would not be able to exceed the annual contribution limit for individuals established in the Federal Accountability Act, which is set at $1,100 for this year, 2007. Only financial institutions and other political entities would be able to make loans beyond that $1,100 limit and then only at commercial rates of interest, the same rates all other Canadians would get from their banks or credit unions.

Under the accountability with respect to loans bill, unions and corporations would be unable to make loans, just as they are now unable to make contributions. This brings our campaign finance rules for loans in line with the rules for political contributions.

Finally, the rules for the treatment of unpaid loans would be tightened by this legislation to ensure candidates could not walk away from unpaid loans. Riding associations would be held responsible for unpaid loans taken out by their candidates.

In short, the accountability with respect to loans bill is modern, realistic and effective. It would strengthen our democracy and public confidence in the integrity of our political system.

The accountability with respect to loans bill builds on the agenda of democratic reform our government has undertaken since being elected. Canada's new government has taken action to modernize Canada's political system by introducing realistic legislation that strengthens accountability, strengthens our democracy and makes the entire political process more accountable.

First we introduced Bill C-4, which implemented a review of the requirements for the registration of political parties.

As I mentioned, the Federal Accountability Act, which included provisions to reduce the influence of big money on politics, was passed before Christmas. Bill C-16, another bill, strengthens our democracy by improving responsibility, transparency and equity. It establishes fixed election dates every four years on the third Monday in October.

Fixed dates take the guesswork out of the electoral process and level the playing field for the chief electoral officer, for political parties and, more important, for voters. It also encourages participation in the democratic process by allowing Canadians to plan to participate in their nation's electoral process.

I am very pleased to report that Bill C-16 finally received royal assent despite becoming the target of unelected Liberal senators to obstruct and delay every aspect of the government's democratic reform agenda, as has been their habit.

As members will recall, Bill C-16 was passed in the House of Commons without amendments. It underwent exhaustive debate in the House of Commons as well as in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

After being passed in the House of Commons with support on both sides of the House, the fixed dates for elections bill was sent to the Senate where it was examined in detail by the Senate's committee on legal and constitutional affairs.

After a lengthy period of scrutiny and detailed process, that Liberal dominated committee supported the passage of the bill without any amendments.

While neither the House nor the Senate committees found it necessary to amend the term limits bill, at the 11th hour, the very last minute, an amendment was passed by the Liberal Senate, a frivolous amendment that watered down the legislation, which was never subject to any level of scrutiny, and compelled it to come back to the House of Commons, effectively delaying and obstructing the bill further.

Finally the delays and obstructions in the Senate stopped and we will now have fixed date elections.

Our government has also moved to modernize the unelected Senate and to make senators more accountable to the people they serve. We have acted to strengthen accountability in the Senate with legislation that finally seeks to give Canadians a say in who they want representing them in the Senate. The involvement of citizens is fundamental to any democratic institution. Unfortunately, until recently Canadians have had little involvement in the selection of their senators.

The Senate election bill recognizes that it is the citizens of the country, not big money or backroom boys, who are best qualified to advise the Prime Minister on who should speak for them in Ottawa.

We, on this side of the House, are anxious to see the passage of this groundbreaking legislation and that brings us to Bill S-4. The tomfoolery that Bill C-16 was subjected to in the Senate pales in comparison to what has happened to Bill S-4, the legislation that seeks to limit Senate terms to eight years.

Bill S-4 was introduced in the Senate on May 30, 2006, almost a year ago.

Remarkably, even though the Leader of the Opposition says that he supports term limits for senators, Bill S-4 remains mired in procedural limbo thanks to Liberal senators bent on obstructing and delaying any meaningful democratic reform.

Bill S-4 is a simple bill and just 66 words long. According to my calculations, the senators, who are not elected, have spent more than five days on each word in this bill.

As I have already done several times, I am asking members of the official opposition to urge their colleagues in the upper chamber to respond to the wishes of Canadians and pass Bill S-4. I know the Liberal leader has tried to do that. I know the Liberal senators tend to defy him and just simply will not listen to him. I wish he could muster some authority, some strength regardless of his overall weakness, at least the strength to lead his own caucus on this one issue and get them to pass it.

Our government rejects the tactics employed by some senators to delay an agenda on democratic reform that is endorsed by the Canadian people and we are taking action to respond to the wishes of Canadians to make their national institutions stronger, more modern, more accountable and more democratic.

The accountability with respect loans bill is the latest of these reforms and I look forward to introducing more legislation that will strengthen accountability in the days ahead. The accountability with respect to the loans bill delivers on the commitment of Canada's new government to rid our nation's political system of the undue influence of big money. It shows Canadians that their vote is mightier than the big bank accounts of a powerful wealthy few.

With the passage of this bill, Canada's new government will create an airtight system of political financing, a system that will eliminate, once and for all, the influence of the rich and powerful, of big money, on our political process. It will create a system that Canadians can trust.

The accountability with respect to loans bill would ensure that the 2006 Liberal leadership race was the last time the influence of big money and powerful friends played a role in the selection of a leader of a political party in Canada. Most important, the bill is modern, accountable, realistic and will strengthen our democracy and public confidence in the integrity of our political system.

For all these reasons, I am making an urgent appeal to all the members in this House to support the bill on accountability with respect to loans and guarantees.

Senate Appointment Consultations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a very great pleasure for me to stand in this place today to speak in favour of Bill C-43 on Senate consultations.

Let me say at the outset that this is only one bill in a suite of legislation that the government has been bringing forward on democratic reform.

We have seen Bill C-16, which is a bill to set fixed dates for elections. It received royal assent just recently and will come into effect. It states, of course, that outside of a non-confidence vote, which may bring the government down at any time, the next election will be held on the third Monday in October 2009. It is a very important piece of democratic reform that is overwhelmingly supported by Canadians.

We also have Bill C-31, which is currently in the Senate. It is moving its way along through committee. It deals with voter integrity and trying to eliminate voter fraud. I am quite confident that this bill will receive royal assent before the House rises for the summer.

However, we also have another bill in the Senate, Bill S-4. We have spoken many times on many occasions in this place about Bill S-4, but I have to say that frankly I cannot fathom why this bill has taken as long as it has in the Senate. For the benefit of those Canadians who may be listening, Bill S-4 is a 66-word bill that has been before the Liberal-dominated and unelected Senate for close to one year now. In fact, May 30 will see the one year anniversary of the bill being before the Senate.

This is a 66-word bill that has been there for close to 12 months. By my rough math, that is a little over five words per month that these primarily Liberal senators have been examining in regard to the bill. All this says to me is that either the bill contains some really big words or there is a second agenda at hand, and that agenda is that the Liberal senators do not want to see Senate reform. They do not want to see Bill S-4 pass.

I have examined the bill and I can assure members that the words are not so big such that it would take five words per month to examine the bill, so I have to go to my second assumption, that is, the Liberal senators truly do not want to see any real and effective Senate reform. Why else would they keep a bill that is so short, so succinct, so precise and so to the point locked up in the Senate for close to a year?

If nothing else, that bill in itself speaks to why we need Senate reform. It speaks to why we need a bill like Bill C-43, which allows the process to be taken away from the prime minister of the day in regard to the appointment of his hacks and flacks to the Senate and allows individual Canadians to express an opinion on who they would like to see represent their region or province in the Senate.

I can think of no greater example than the travesty of Bill S-4 for supporting this bill, yet I hear nothing but opposition from members of the official opposition party, members of the New Democratic Party and members of the Bloc Québécois, who are saying they will not support Bill C-43, consultations that in effect would allow a prime minister to listen to Canadians before he or she makes an appointment to the Senate.

If we truly believe in accountability then we must support Bill C-43, yet I hear nothing but opposition from members opposite, and again, that confuses me. On the one hand I hear members opposite talk about the need for Senate reform, for accountability and for regional representation, yet I hear nothing but opposition to a very good piece of legislation that we have put before the House for discussion and debate.

Bill C-43 deals with a very important conception of ours, which is that all members, whether in this place or the other place, should be accountable. There is only one way to deal with true accountability. That is to allow the individual citizens of this great country of ours to have a say in who represents them so that in fact the representatives then would be accountable to the citizens rather than those who appointed them.

That is the essence of Bill C-43. It is to allow consultations to take place at a provincial or a territorial level. Those consultations, in which the will of the people would be expressed, then would allow the prime minister of the day to appoint the individual to the Senate. In other words, it does not in any way take away from the constitutionality that has been in question from time to time during this debate. In fact, it accommodates the Constitution.

I take some difference of opinion with my hon. colleague the deputy House leader who said that the bill would allow us to skirt the Constitution. I do not like that choice of language. I choose to say that the bill would allow us to accommodate the provisions contained within the current Constitution, and those provisions say that only the Governor General can appoint members to the Senate. The current convention is that the Governor General, before making that appointment, would take advice from the prime minister of the day, and only the prime minister. That would still be in effect. Therefore, the constitutionality argument is really mute.

The prime minister would still appoint senators to the upper house, but only after the prime minister listened to the expressed will, through a consultation process, of the citizens in various provinces, territories and regions. What could be fairer and more transparent than that? What could be more accountable than that?

We on this side of the House say that we have to get away from the process that has occurred for the last 100 years where, for strictly partisan reasons, members of the upper house have been appointed. In all fairness, we have seen time and time again appointments made on a partisan level regardless of political affiliation and regardless of which party happens to be in government of the day.

We have seen time after time Liberal prime ministers appoint Liberal senators for no other reason than the fact that the person has been a good, loyal political partisan soldier to the Liberal Party. We have also seen that happen when Conservative governments have been in power. Conservative governments have appointed Conservative senators because of their loyalty and partisanship to the government of the day. My point is that should not be allowed to happen because there really is no accountability to the people. There is only accountability to the party of the day, or the prime minister who made the appointment.

We need to get away from that method of appointing senators. We have to allow Canadian citizens a voice in who they wish to see represent them in the Senate.

The bill deals with that in a very precise, succinct and fair manner. Consultations would be taken during federal elections at the provincial level. Should the citizens of a particular province decide they wished to see a certain individual represent them in the Senate, that would allow the prime minister to advise the Governor General of his will to appoint that person.

We do not have a constitutional argument here. We have a fairness argument, and it absolutely works.

Many times we have seen appointments made to the Senate which, under normal circumstances by anyone's standards, would not be considered to be fair and would not be considered to be representative of the people of that province. I want to draw to the House's attention only a couple of those examples.

In my opinion one of the most egregious uses of this appointment process happened with a current senator by the name of Art Eggleton, a former mayor of Toronto, a former Liberal member of Parliament and a former Liberal cabinet minister. Most Canadians will recall the disgrace in which Mr. Eggleton was dismissed from cabinet. He was found guilty of awarding untendered contracts to one of his former girlfriends. What was his reward? His reward was an appointment to the Senate. That, under normal circumstances, would never happen.

I am sure if we took a look at some of the other names of current senators in the upper chamber, we would find that the reason those people were appointed was because of the loyalty they exhibited to the party. They were appointed not because they were deserving of representing the people, but only because they curried favour with the prime minister of the day or the government of the day.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow we will continue our focus on making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime.

This morning we completed the debate at report stage on Bill C-10. That is a bill to introduce mandatory penalties for gun related crimes and other violent acts. Our government proposed amendments at report stage to restore what the Liberals had gutted from the bill at committee, mainly those aspects that will ensure violent criminals actually serve time in jail. We will be voting on these amendments next week.

We will continue this afternoon with Bill C-22, which is the age of protection legislation, followed by Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation that would require criminals who are convicted on two separate occasions of a violent crime to prove to the court why they are not a danger to the community.

Next week will be strengthening accountability through democratic reform week. It effectively kicked off today when Bill C-16, the fixed dates for elections act, received royal assent.

On Monday we will resume debate on Bill C-43. That is the bill that proposes to give Canadians a say in who they want representing them in the Senate.

Our government will be introducing a number of new measures in the House of Commons next week, which I will address at the appropriate time.

Of course, we still have Bill S-4, the bill to establish Senate term limits, which has been languishing in the Senate for almost a year now. It would be nice if the Senate passed that. It would be nice if the Liberal senators could get on with it, so that we could actually have that bill here in the House of Commons as part of our focus on democratic reform next week.

Tuesday, May 8 and Thursday, May 10 will be allotted days.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66 I would like to conclude debate tomorrow on the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I would like to conclude debate on May 11, 2007 on the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Subject to an agreement with other parties, there may be interest in concluding debate at second reading of Bill C-33, the income tax bill, as early as tomorrow.

On the question of Bill C-30, we see elements of that legislation that we brought forward that are very valuable relating to biodiesel, alternative fuels and so on, and we will seek ways of introducing that in the House of Commons. However, we have absolutely no intention of bringing forward the Liberal carbon tax plan, which is now at the fore of that bill, which would establish an unlimited right to pollute for polluters. All they would have to do is pay and they would have an unlimited right to pollute. That is not our approach. We are bringing in regulations to achieve real reductions in greenhouse gases. That is our approach.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

May 3, 2007

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the schedule to this letter on the 3rd day of May, 2007, at 10:30 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila-Marie Cook

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate)--Chapter 9, Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act--Chapter 10, and Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act--Chapter 11.

Electoral Reform

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on Motion No. 262, which proposes two initiatives in response to the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The motion proposes that we strike a special committee of the House of Commons to make recommendations on democratic reform. The motion also proposes the creation of a citizens' consultation group to report on the matter.

This is the type of motion the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London made at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The member proposed to do a study on democratic reform. What I find interesting is that the member's proposal was voted down by the committee, which included the NDP member on the committee at that time.

I am curious as to why the NDP member would bring forward Motion No. 262 at this time, based on the fact that this was something that one of our members had earlier proposed. Also this is an initiative that as a government we have been looking at as well. Therefore, I find that the motion is redundant.

I appreciate what the member for Vancouver Island North is trying to do. I think we all agree that it makes sense to look at the democratic process from time to time and see if there are ways that we can change it to make it better.

It is for all of these reasons I will not be supporting the motion. Certainly, as I have said before, it is very worthwhile to look at ways to make the democratic process better, but the government has already taken action. Our government has already initiated a process to start looking at this issue.

The previous government did not do a whole lot about the democratic process over the 13 years that the Liberals were in power. They certainly talked about doing something about the democratic process, but unfortunately it never materialized under the previous government.

One thing our government has definitely been looking at is how we consult with Canadians and how we can do a better job on democratic reform issues. With that in mind I would like to talk about what the government is looking at doing over the next little while.

We certainly want to engage parliamentarians. We have initiated a number of legislative issues. Public consultation is also very important to make this process work. We should engage all Canadians.

The work the government has been doing has been noted by other members, but it bears repeating.

The government enacted Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act. This is one of the most notable things this government has done. The act bans union as well as corporate donations, and limits contributions to $1,100, and makes sure that no cash donations are accepted. In terms of the democratic process we have seen what happens in other parts of the world where there is not a limit on donations. People seem to have more influence with the more money that they are able to spend on elections. Limiting the amount will work in our democratic process. It is important regardless of where Canadians come from that they be able to have a say in government and not just be able to influence the government with money.

Bill C-16 was introduced by the Conservative government. The bill looks at establishing fixed election dates. The bill passed unanimously by the House. The Senate recently attempted to add an amendment that the government rejects. We are hoping that the Senate will move forward and put the bill back to the way it was originally.

What is important with fixed election dates is that we would not just worry about what is going on in the polls. Whatever party was in government would have an opportunity for more stability. People would know that every four years an election would be held on a certain date. This has worked in some provinces. This is something that we could look at federally as well.

The third initiative that the government has introduced in terms of legislation is Bill S-4 which was introduced in the Senate. That bill limits the terms for senators. It would eliminate the current situation where unelected and unaccountable senators can sit for up to 45 years. An eight year term would allow senators to get the kind of experience they need when looking at legislative initiatives and ensure they would get new perspectives.

Even though that bill was introduced in the Senate, we are stuck. It has been sitting in the other place for almost a year now, which is kind of surprising. It may be a bit of a concern if a bill was introduced to limit a term from 45 years to 8 years, but we would encourage that unelected, majority-driven Liberal Senate to pass that bill.

There are also other areas that we have looked at. The government introduced Bill C-43, the Senate appointment consultations act, which we will be debating next week. This bill would enable us to talk to people about how senators should be appointed.

These are all great initiatives that will help make the democratic process better.

We have also introduced Bill C-31 which looks at a number of different measures in terms of the electoral system and voter ID. This is important based on all the recommendations that were contained in the 13th report of the procedure and House affairs committee. The government is looking for a way to implement those recommendations through Bill C-31. We are trying to make the electoral system more fair. We are trying to reduce fraud. The bill has the support of all parties and we are certainly hoping that it will be passed very shortly in the Senate.

The second issue that I would like to address today is public consultations. It is important that not only elected representatives participate in the system, but individuals from across the country participate as well. The government is already engaged in this. We started the process back on January 9.

We want to set up citizen forum groups across the country, so we could deal with all the provinces and territories. We are midway in this process. We have been able to talk to people. At each of these forums somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40 to 50 individuals have represented the Canadian population. We are hoping that when we are done with this process, we will have spoken to some 400 or 500 Canadians.

In this way, we really believe that we can get some impartial views. One of the members talked about the fact that certain parties were already leaning toward one certain system. In this way, we have a chance not to bias the process but give Canadians an opportunity to participate. So far the participation and the response has been very enthusiastic. This is good to see as we look at a whole range of individuals from different parties, from across all electoral systems, as well as the House of Commons, the Senate and citizens.

We are also looking at a youth forum that would take place in Ottawa. This forum would try to establish why there is such low voter turnout among young people. We realize that young people are disengaged and sometimes frustrated with the system. It is important that we look at ways to engage young people, so they can be part of the political process and look at making a difference.

We are also looking at sending a survey out across the country. This could be part of our final report.

We have consultations going on with members of the House and with the Senate. We have surveys, citizen groups and youth forums. All of these things will be important as we look at delivering the final report some time in June of this year. I certainly look forward to seeing it.

As we look at introducing legislation in the House, it is important that we consult with people. This gives us a better understanding obviously as we look at different parts of the country with different needs. I have sat in on a few meetings of the procedure and House Affairs, and I know there are concerns given the fact that we have large urban ridings and rural ridings. Because of the uniqueness of this country, I believe this consultation process is important.

Once again, I am going to urge all members to vote against this motion because of what we already having going on in the House. I want to thank parliamentarians for their participation in this process.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Motion No. 262, which proposes two initiatives in response to the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. First, the motion recommends that a special committee of the House of Commons be created to make recommendations on democratic reform issues. Second, it proposes that a special committee look into creating a citizens' consultation group and to report on this matter within six weeks.

I intend to oppose this motion for reasons I will make clear in my remarks today. I would also encourage other members of the House to oppose it.

There appear to be some fundamental inconsistencies in the NDP's approach to electoral reform and public consultation on democratic reform and electoral reform in particular. In this regard I noticed that one of the opposition day motions put forward by the NDP is that we should move immediately to implement electoral reform but that we should implement a specific type of electoral reform, that of a mixed member proportional system.

At the same time the NDP is putting forward Motion No. 262 to study our electoral system, it is also suggesting that we immediately reform our electoral system, and not necessarily in a way that reflects what the Canadian public may wish, but rather in a way that reflects the interests of the New Democratic Party. We can, therefore, all be excused for being confused about what exactly is the plan of the NDP with regard to democratic reform in general and electoral reform specifically.

Does the NDP want us to move immediately to implement a mixed member system, as it has stated on many occasions, or does the NDP want us to consult Canadians on electoral reform in advance, as suggested by Motion No. 262, and find out whether Canadians believe electoral reform is an issue they wish to pursue?

It seems that the NDP has not only prejudged the need for electoral reform, but is also prescribing for Canadians exactly what type of electoral reform Canadians should pursue. I find this interesting because there are a number of electoral systems that could be pursued should it be decided that reform is an advisable course of action.

Personally, I do not believe it would be advisable to barrel ahead to change our electoral system and change it to a specific electoral system before we even have any indication from Canadians that this is what they want.

I note that the sponsor of Motion No. 262 in the first hour of debate made it quite clear that she wanted the consultations to focus solely on electoral reform. From her remarks it did not seem that she and indeed her party had anything but a narrow focus on one single issue.

The question again is, does the NDP want to hear the views of Canadians on electoral reform, or does it want to prescribe for Canadians the type of electoral reform that it has apparently already decided on without consultation?

The actions of this government in the area of democratic reform stand in stark contrast to those of the NDP. We recognize that democratic reform is not a single issue. It is not just about electoral reform, as the NDP would have everyone believe.

Democratic reform encompasses a wide range of issues from political financing to improvements to our electoral system and the modernization of our democratic institutions. This was a fact that was recognized in the 43rd report, which was released in June 2005 but not acted on by the previous government.

The report's conclusions underline a whole range of issues beyond electoral reform that should be the subject of consultation. We need to be clear about the conclusions of the 43rd report if we are to act on them.

Let me read for members exactly what the report said. The report states that a citizens' consultation group along with the parliamentary committee should:

--make recommendations on the values and principles Canadians would like to see in their democratic and electoral systems.... [This] would take into account an examination of the role of Members of Parliament and political parties; citizen engagement and rates of voter participation, including youth and aboriginal communities; civic literacy; and how to foster a more representative House of Commons, including, but not limited to, increased representation of women and minorities, and questions of proportionality, community of interest and representation--

My question would be, why is the NDP focusing only on one aspect of democratic reform when there are so many other equally important issues?

For our part, this government is taking a much different approach. First, rather than just thinking about a consultation process as suggested by Motion No. 262, we have actually taken action to implement a process as the government announced it would do in January.

As a result of the government's actions, a citizens' consultation process is under way. The process consists of two key parts. The first is a series of 12 deliberative forums, one in each province, one for the territories and one youth forum, each with a participation of 40 to 50 citizens who are roughly representative of the Canadian population. The second part is a telephone survey on a range of issues related to our democratic institutions.

The deliberative consultation process is well under way. Consultations have already taken place in British Columbia, Alberta, the territories, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

In contrast to the process recommended by Motion No. 262, the government sponsored process is consulting citizens on a broad range of issues. Each forum is addressing a common set of topics, including political parties, the electoral system, the House of Commons, the Senate and the role of the citizen. It will be noted that this is very similar to the recommendation of the 43rd report. Unlike the NDP approach, we are not focusing only on a single issue and we are not prejudging the views of Canadians on these issues.

Once the process is over, a report on the process will be prepared for the government. The government intends to take the results of these consultations very seriously and parliamentarians will continue to be engaged on these important subjects.

It appears that the government is pursuing a much more comprehensive approach to consultation than is proposed in Motion No. 262. Since the process is well under way, Motion No. 262 has become redundant and has been for some time now.

Apart from the consultation process, the government has engaged parliamentarians on a wide range of important democratic reform initiatives, as we indicated we would do in our electoral platform. I dare say that no other government in history has accomplished so much in this important area. Allow me to review some of the initiatives we have taken so far on this issue.

First, we passed Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, which provides for some important political financing reforms, including a ban on corporate and union donations, and the reduction of contribution limits to $1,000. This will ensure that money and influence are not the determining factors in financing political parties and the parties can operate on a level playing field.

We have introduced practical and achievable legislation in the area of Senate reform, including Bill S-4, which would limit the tenure of senators to a period of eight years, and Bill C-43, which would establish a national process for consulting Canadians on their preferences for Senate appointments.

Of particular interest for this debate, the consultations proposed in Bill C-43 would not be carried out by means of a first past the post system. Rather, elections would be conducted using a proportional and preferential voting system called the single transferable vote, or STV system. It will be interesting to know the ultimate position of the New Democratic Party on Bill C-43 since the bill is proposing the introduction of a proportional electoral system which the NDP has been advocating for the House of Commons. Bill C-43 is an important initiative because for the first time Canadians will have the opportunity to have input into their selection of senators.

The government has also moved forward on an important initiative to improve the integrity of our electoral system. Bill C-31 includes important provisions to combat electoral system fraud, in particular through the introduction of requirements for voter ID. If passed, I believe the bill would make a tremendous contribution to ensuring that no election was tainted by the possibility of voter fraud.

The government is taking steps to increase electoral fairness through the introduction of Bill C-16 which establishes fixed dates for federal elections. If passed, this initiative would ensure that elections occurred once every four years and not just on the whim of a prime minister who might choose to call an election on the basis of whether or not his or her party was high in the polls.

The government has demonstrated a tremendous commitment to electoral reform. We are well on our way to meeting the commitments that we made to Canadians.

To conclude, I must encourage all members to vote against the motion for the reasons I have stated. Given that the government has already taken action to implement a public consultation process, Motion No. 262 is redundant. Not only that, but the government's process is much more comprehensive than was recommended by the NDP. It will not be focused only on electoral reform, contrary to the desire of the sponsor of the motion. It conforms largely to the recommendations of the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The New Democratic Party has already decided prior to consulting with Canadians that the mixed member proportional system is the way to go. This government does not want to prejudge the views of Canadians on this important matter.

Might I add that the previous speaker made mention of several changes that she feels need to be made to the way that Parliament works. It is important to point out that the previous Liberal government was in power for 13 years. The Liberals moved forward on none of these provisions. I find that extraordinary.

Quite frankly, as someone who has had a lifelong interest in democratic reform, I am proud of the initiatives that our government has launched. I encourage all members of all parties in the House to support them when they come forward.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate today on Motion No. 262. The motion proposes two initiatives in response to the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

First, the motion proposes that a special committee of the House of Commons be created to make recommendations on democratic reform issues and, second, that a special committee look into creating a citizens consultation group and to report on this matter within six weeks.

At the outset, I want to make it clear that I will be urging members to vote against this motion, not because involving parliamentarians and citizens in discussion about democratic reform is an unworthy exercise, but because the government has already taken such clear action in this important area and it will continue to do so.

After the 43rd report was released in the last Parliament, nothing happened in the area of democratic reform, consultations or otherwise. This stands in sharp contrast to the actions of this government. We have engaged and continue to engage parliamentarians in a number of important democratic reform initiatives. We have already started a process to consult Canadians on democratic reform issues. In short, I will demonstrate today that the motion before us has been overtaken by events.

First , in the area of engaging parliamentarians on democratic reform issues, I am confident in saying that this government has done more than any previous government in bringing forward democratic reform initiatives for consideration in Parliament. Parliament adopted Bill C-2, the Accountability Act, which included a number of political financing reforms, most notably a ban on union and corporate donations, a contribution limit of $1,000, a ban on cash donations and a ban on trust funds. These measures help to eliminate the perception that only those with money have an influence on politics. This, in turn, enhances confidence in the political process.

The government also introduced Bill C-16 to establish fixed dates for federal elections. This bill was passed unanimously with all party consent in the House. More recently, the House of Commons adopted a motion to reject an unnecessary amendment adopted by the Senate. We are hoping t the Senate will now accept the now twice expressed will of the members of the democratically elected House of Commons regarding this bill. The Senate should recognize the legitimacy of the House, in particular on matters relating to elections, and pass this bill as it was originally intended.

The implementation of fixed dates for elections will greatly improve the fairness of Canada's electoral system by eliminating the ability of the governing party to set the timing of a general election to its own advantage.

The government has also taken important steps in the area of Senate reform, with the introduction of practical and achievable measures. Last May, the government introduced Bill S-4 in the Senate, which would establish a term limit for senators of eight years. The adoption of this bill would eliminate the current situation where unelected, unaccountable senators can sit for up to 45 years.

An eight year term would allow senators to gain the experience necessary to fulfill the Senate's important role of legislative review, while ensuring that the Senate is refreshed by new perspectives and ideas. Despite widespread support for this initiative, the bill has, unfortunately, been held up in the Senate for almost a year now.

Also in the area of Senate reform, the government introduced Bill C-43, the Senate appointment consultations act, which would provide a process whereby voters may be consulted on potential appointments to the Senate in their respective provinces. Debate on this bill began last week. For the first time ever, legislation will provide Canadians with a voice on who represents them in the Senate.

The government has also introduced Bill C-31, which includes a number of initiatives aimed at ensuring the integrity of the electoral system, including a new system of voter identification. Bill C-31 would implement most of the recommendations of the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The passage of this bill will reduce the opportunities for fraud and promote fairness in our electoral system. I hope Bill C-31 will soon be passed in the Senate.

In summary, this government has demonstrated the most extensive commitment ever to the modernization of Canada's national democratic institutions.

In the area of public consultations, we are not just looking into the issue, as proposed in Motion No. 262, we are acting.

On January 9, 2007, the government announced that it was launching a public consultation process on democratic reform issues. In particular, the process would engage Canadians in a dialogue to identify the priorities, values and principles that should underpin Canada's democratic institutions and practices.

The process consists of two main elements, both organized by independent contractors.

First, there is a deliberative process to consult Canadians in 12 citizens' forums, one held in each province, one in the Territories, and also in one national youth forum. The process is more than half complete, with the forums in British Columbia, Alberta, the Territories, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island already completed. Each forum includes approximately 40 to 50 citizens who are roughly representative of the Canadian population.

In that regard, it is worth noting that by the time we are finished approximately 500 Canadians will have participated in the deliberative discussions, all of them giving up a few days of their time, not to mention studying the issues in advance.

The response so far has been very enthusiastic. Participants are examining a whole range of issues, including: political parties, the electoral system, the House of Commons and the Senate, and the role of the citizen.

In the youth forum, which will take place in Ottawa, participants will take a close look at why there is low voter turnout among Canada's youth and why a significant number of young people appear to be disengaged from the political process.

The second element is a large scale national survey that will be administered to a representative sample of Canadians across the country.

We will learn in the forums and the survey and they will be combined into a final report that will be ready by June of this year.

I very much look forward to the report and what it will tell us about the views of Canadians and our democratic institutions and practices. The government intends to take the results of these consultations very seriously.

In conclusion, I urge all members to vote no on Motion No. 262. While the member undoubtedly had honourable intentions in bringing the motion forward, passing this initiative would not serve any useful purpose. The government has engaged and will continue to engage parliamentarians on democratic reform issues; witness the extensive legislative agenda we have introduced in this important area.

The comprehensive process to hear the views of Canadians on democratic reform issues, which we announced in January, is well under way. We will be listening to the views of Canadians and deciding the next steps in the reform of our democratic institutions.

Parliamentarians will play a role in that process. Having the information from the consultation process will mean that parliamentarians are better informed when considering further improvements to our democratic process.

Senate Appointment Consultations Act

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-43, An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate.

I want to begin my comments with a historical perspective. It is interesting to go back to the beginning of our country and the constitutional debates in Quebec at the Quebec conference and the debates around the Senate. In fact, those debates were some of the longest debates, and some would say they were controversial, about what should be done in terms of that new idea, the new formation called Canada.

There had been a consensus about reforming and having responsible government. Indeed, after the rebellions in 1837, we saw it in 1841. The concept and the idea of responsible government had been born. The rebellions built on Upper and Lower Canada had taken place. In 1841 we saw the idea of responsible government after the Durham report, with all its ills, but there were some good things in it, and then in the Quebec conference in the discussion around what should be done in terms of a new country and the formation of a confederation.

In those debates, there were discussions among the reformers at the time, who were very different from the reformers of more recent times. The Browns, for instance, actually believed that an elected Senate at the time would be problematic. That is interesting to note because at the time Brown and his movement, the reformers of the time, were laying down the markers for what they believed would be more responsible and more representative government.

Yet there was a consensus at the time, after much debate, as I have said, to have an appointed Senate. The reason people gave was that they believed the two houses had to be given certain jurisdictions and responsibilities. There was a concern at the time that one house should not have dominance over the other house, notwithstanding the obvious submission of people who saw a democratically elected house as better than an appointed one.

These people shared some concerns. Many of the reformers at the time trumpeted the comments of John Stuart Mill, who said in 1861:

An assembly which does not rest on the basis of some great power in the country is ineffectual against one which does.

People consciously knew that by way of agreeing to an appointed Senate the upper house would not trump the House of Commons. They were very deliberate, because they did not want to see the quagmire. They saw the upper house as a check.

They were concerned about the experience in the United States at the time. We have to recall our history. The American civil war had just happened. People were very conscious of it. One of the reasons Confederation came together, notwithstanding the Fenian raids, was due to the concern about the Americans' creep north, so to speak.

They wanted to get it right. They wanted to make sure it was different. They wanted to make sure there were proper checks and balances. They subscribed to the idea of an appointed house.

I will go back in history to re-Confederation in terms of what the debates were at the Quebec conference, because it is very important to understand our history in order to understand where we are now and to understand this bill.

In essence what the reformers of the time were saying, Macdonald and others, was that we needed a balance. They wanted to make sure that the upper house was not going to trump the lower house, so that, as John Stuart Mill said, we would not have one “assembly which rests on the basis of some great power in the country”, i.e. the people, and one that would cause a disproportionate balance.

Because, if we look at the structure of the Senate, we see that there were senators appointed. We have to recall that it was the east and west, and the Maritimes were still discussing whether there would be a maritime union. Senators would not be appointed based on representation of exact population. It was very important that it was going to be an appointed Senate.

Delegates at the Quebec conference believed that to have responsible government, the principle that was fought for in the rebellions of 1837 and the act in 1841, there had to be responsible representation by population government in the House of Commons and oversight from the Senate.

If we fast forward to where we are now, this bill is not proposing an overview of what the Senate's roles and responsibilities are. It does not take into consideration, in my opinion, what the initial debate was in this place with the former Reform Party about the so-called triple E Senate. It is not a discussion that really deals with what the Senate's role and responsibilities are. It is simply a way to get around the obvious problem of having an appointed body in 2007. We have not evolved to having a body that is actually democratically respected and responsible.

The fundamental problem with this bill is that it is a half measure. It says that we can have a plebiscite. We have not quite decided yet how that is to be done, but let us say it is in a federal election. The plebiscite goes forward and the person who is nominated goes to the Prime Minister, who makes the appointment.

What it does not do is deal with the whole quagmire of the role of the upper house. That is fundamentally what should be dealt with. That is really what Canadians want. It is what many people believe the former Reform Party really wanted to deal with.

This bill skirts the Constitution because it does not open the Constitution to deal with the problem. It is simply a plebiscite of sorts to find out who is the most popular person to be appointed by the Prime Minister. That might sound good to some people. I am sure the governing party will say that it is a great thing, that it would be a step in the right direction and an incremental and positive step. We may see that as being the case, except when we look at what the government has done in the area of democratic reform and judge it on its record to date.

One bill that the NDP subscribed to and supported was Bill C-16, a bill that would fix election dates and will hopefully be enacted very soon. It was an idea that our party came up with. My predecessor, Mr. Broadbent, put it forward in his ethics package before the last election. The government then took it off the NDP shelf, put it into its platform, brought it before the House and everyone agreed to it. It made sense.

We agreed that we should not open the Constitution for that particular bill. We did that because it was something that could be done without affecting the structure and functions of our Parliament. It was a process in terms of how election dates are set and it did not deal with undermining the whole idea of a minority Parliament and confidence. It was fine.

This bill is a sidestep on the Constitution. For that reason alone, personally I cannot support it. If we continue to skirt the Constitution, I think we are going down a dangerous road. I submit that the government has to understand that the Constitution is not a suggestion list. It is not something for which we say, “Maybe we would like to do this”. It is a fundamental foundation of our country and of the structure of this place and obviously of the other place.

If we are going to talk about substantive change and real democratic reform, then what we need to do is have an honest debate in this country. To be fair, the former Reform Party tried to do that. It attempted to have a so-called triple E Senate.

However, the Conservative government simply wants to do an end run around the Constitution and say, “Here, we have a plebiscite, we will rubber stamp the plebiscite choice, and the Prime Minister will appoint the person”. It does absolutely nothing to the roles and responsibilities of the upper house.

In fact, we will have a house that will have some people who are deemed to have been chosen by the people and some who are appointed, those who are flying, so to speak, on different octane, and people will ask who legitimately speaks for the other place. Is it the person who is there by way of plebiscite or the person who is appointed? It creates a quagmire for the upper house and therefore for this place.

On those points alone, I believe we cannot support the bill.

I want to now turn to where the government is on democratic reform. It is very sad to see that the government has decided not to embrace what the previous Parliament put forward through the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which was to go out to citizens and have a citizens' engagement on democratic reform and also have a House of Commons committee going out to Canadians to speak on democratic reform and find out what Canadians' ideas are.

Sadly, what the government came up with has been a disaster. The government will not admit that, but I know it has been a disaster. The government has had to backtrack and reassign contracts. It has gone to so-called “non-special interests”, which is laughable, and I will tell the House who it is, to go to Canadians and have a focus group on what they believe democratic reform should look like.

The paper that has been put out is called “Public Consultations on Canada's Democratic Institutions and Practices”. I have the participants' workbook here. I did not get it from the government website but actually from a participant who recently went through the process and procedure.

Mr. Speaker, you will know the group because it is out of Winnipeg. It is the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. I will not say anything too negative about the Frontier group, but what I can say genuinely is that it is not an objective think tank. Some have said that it makes the Fraser Institute look left wing, but I will not subscribe to what those others have said.

On its website, the Frontier group says it fundamentally does not believe in ideas like proportional representation. This is the group that the government has hired, with taxpayers' money, to talk to Canadians about democratic reform. So when the government presents a bill, Bill C-43 on Senate reform and change--

Canada Elections Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to disagree with the Senate amendment to Bill C-16.

The hon. chief government whip is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed from April 23 consideration of the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say at the outset that the Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill C-16 in principle.

Let me start by saying that, in 1998, at the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie's initiative, the Bloc Québécois Bloc launched a number of reflection exercises, including one on citizenship and democracy, in which it was agreed that, in a sovereign Quebec, a fixed election date system would be much more suitable than the British system which is currently in place in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. Indeed, holding elections on a fixed date would allow parliamentarians to plan their work better, giving them a better chance to undertake it.

Personally, I remember very well that, under the previous minority government, the international trade subcommittee never got going because we did not know when an election would be called. That caused very serious harm to industry in Canada and Quebec, given a context where Canada is lagging behind terribly in terms of globalization and free trade.

We also feel that it would promote voter turnout. We know that, in the bill, the third Monday of October is the proposed time to hold elections. It was precisely selected because that is a time of year when people are available to take part in electoral process and elections. People are certainly more available then than they were for the June 28, 2004 election, and probably more available than for the last election. As hon. members will recall, that election was called in November, then came the Christmas period and, in January, we went to the polls.

We therefore believe that having to hold elections on a fixed date would not only allow to better plan parliamentary work, but also foster improved voter participation.

We see many advantages and I do not feel I need to drone on about this for too long. It is a matter of fairness between the parties. Indeed, we all know that, at present, the governments in power and the Prime Minister exploit the calendar and the current situation in order to call an election at any time they like. During Mr. Chrétien's era, for example, we rarely saw terms last longer than three and a half years. He would wait for the right time and call an election only when it was in his best interest and that of the Liberal Party. We believe, however, that all Canadians and all the parties should be aware of the exact framework for the rules of the game. Obviously, we would know when the election date would be. As I mentioned, this would foster much more rational governance and, we believe, promote political participation. Certain months are completely inadvisable, if we really want to increase voter turnout. Thus, by knowing the rules of the game, by knowing the date in advance and choosing a date that appears to be at the most convenient time of year for all Canadians and Quebeckers, as is the case in Bill C-16, we will be in a better position to encourage voter participation.

I cannot ignore the fact that knowing when the election will take place could help with the recruitment of some future candidates. I know very well that, in Quebec, some very valuable people have left their jobs believing that an election was imminent. When they had found other jobs they could not leave when Premier Jean Charest called the election. Others were unable to run because they could not leave their professional responsibilities at the drop of a hat, or the roll of the dice.

Therefore, we believe that we would just be reflecting what is happening in today's modern democracies around the world. You may be familiar with the studies published by Henry Milner of the Institute for Research on Public Policy. Of the 40 democracies he studied, there are only 12 that do not have fixed election dates.

Naturally, if a minority government were to lose the confidence of the House, the Prime Minister would be able to call on the Governor General to ask that an election be called. However, he could not do it based solely on the fact that the polls were favourable, for example following a given decision. Following a temporary increase in support for the government in power, he could not call on the Governor General and have her dissolve Parliament without valid reasons.

Given the current system, as I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Québécois will support the principle underlying the bill. We think that the new system being proposed is much fairer and more modern. It will support voter participation in the campaign and the election, and it will not challenge the government's responsibilities. That is why we support this bill.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have sat here and listened to most of the debate on the motion by the government House leader today. I think there is certainly great unanimity around the notion that we need Bill C-16 and we need it passed. What is lost in all of this is the whole reason we have brought this forward, and that is to get rid of the kind of exploitative situations that governments have taken in the past to monkey around with election dates for the benefit of partisan advantage.

The fact is we have a bill in front of us. It went through the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, through the Senate and through the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Then at the last minute, out of left field, we get this final grasp at a straw to kick into motion one last shred of an ability to get a partisan favour into election dates.

Has the member not thought about looking through the lens of trying to improve this? Why could something that has gone through this kind of scrutiny not just be passed and sent back—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-16.

I want to start my comments by recognizing my predecessor, Mr. Ed Broadbent, who brought forward an ethics package before the last election. The ethics package he proposed was to clean up politics and some of the ways we might do that.

Interestingly enough, one of the proposals Mr. Broadbent put forward in his ethics package was for fixed date elections. The NDP is happy to support Bill C-16 because our party put the initiative on the table. It was an initiative we took to propose ideas rather than just oppose ideas. That is very important. I believe our role as responsible parliamentarians is not just to oppose, which is certainly necessary when in opposition, but also to propose. We felt it was very important to propose fixed date elections. Of course we support Bill C-16 since it was an NDP proposal before the last election. This is not something that we proposed in the midst of an election. It is something we actually presented to the last Parliament because we thought it was very important.

Mr. Broadbent also had in his ethics package, which our party was happy to put front and centre in the last Parliament, his ideas to clean up politics and the need to deal with things like floor crossing. Floor crossing is still rampant in this place and it must be dealt with.

The idea of fixed date elections is very important to the NDP. It is a good idea. There were consultations with people who have fought for fair elections, people in the large community of democratic reform. Fair Vote Canada is non-partisan and many parties are represented in that body. Mr. Segal, Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Broadbent are involved. I am not sure if any of the Bloc members have signed on with Fair Vote Canada, but I encourage them to do so. They may want to look at Fair Vote Canada's ideas and tenets that all votes should be fair votes and that the system be fair. Part of that is fixed date elections.

When the bill was before committee we proposed amendments to it to clarify things like confidence. We put those ideas forward as something to consider.

Bill C-16 is not long. It does not deal with constitutional change. We thought that was reasonable. Mr. Broadbent put forward the same proposals, that we did not need to open the Constitution to make this kind of change, which in effect is a practice in what we are doing. It still gives Parliament the option of removing confidence from the governing party which would then trigger an election.

We believe that this was a pragmatic and reasonable thing to do. We had seen the abuse by governments before that would use the date of an election simply to make sure that it had the upper hand on the other parties. In the end what the government was doing was trying to have the upper hand on Canadians. We saw that as a manipulation of the government's responsibility and power. If the government thought it might be favourable to call an election, it would do the polling. The government would probably do cross-tabulation, where a couple of ideas are taken from different regions and put together to make sure that the government would win a majority. Inevitably, the cash would be distributed throughout the land and would fall off wagons everywhere. Money would be given to areas where the government of the day needed to shore up support.

This is clearly anti-democratic.The fact that a governing party can manipulate the date of an election for its own benefit is anti-democratic. Sadly, that has been the case with previous governments. It happened in the last majority Parliament. The Liberals saw an opportune time and called an election in order to get another majority.

In the bill we should not only address fixed date elections, but also the way in which the votes are counted. It is important to note that in the majority governments of Mr. Chrétien, notwithstanding that he had the most votes, a disproportionate number of seats were allotted to his government.

I say that not just to point to Mr. Chrétien and the Liberal Party. The same thing happened at the provincial level. I can think of the NDP winning a certain percentage of the vote and a disproportionate number of seats. Therefore, it is not about partisanship but it is a reflection of the people's will.

The fact that a fixed date election was something we could do without opening up the Constitution was fair. It is a little different than what we will be debating later today, Bill C-43, which is the idea that we can have plebiscites on who should represent citizens in the Senate and still skirt the Constitution.

I think we have pretty much tested the limits of how far we can skirt or go around the Constitution and practice with Bill C-16. I know that members of all parties agreed that Bill C-16 made sense, that we did not need to open up the Constitution. I would challenge that, though, on Bill C-43 which we will be debating later.

Juxtaposed to Bill C-16, when we look at having plebiscites to have people decide which person they want representing them in the Senate and then go to the Prime Minister, and then the person would be appointed, it skirts the Constitution a little too far. In fact, it says that is about as far as they will go because they do not want to touch the Constitution.

The Constitution is not a suggestion list. It is a fundamental foundation of how our country is to operate. I would suggest that Bill C-16 is a practice in terms of how the government could operate in setting an election date versus the bill we will be debating later, Bill C-43, which actually goes too far in terms of avoiding the Constitution simply because they do not want to get into the muck of a constitutional debate.

If we are serious about real, democratic reform and Senate reform, then we need to address it and not run from it. Bill C-16 gave us the opportunity to take away the potential abuse of governments to use an election date for their own political partisan advance.

When we looked at the act we proposed amendments and the Bloc proposed some amendments. We have heard some dates from Bloc members for the fixed election date. However, I concur with other members who suggested that having it in the spring was not doable and having it at certain times in the fall was not doable.

The timing we came up with is perfectly reasonable to compromise in terms of meeting the needs of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, be it those who live in rural areas or in the north. I think the timing of having it in the fall makes perfect sense, particularly for our farming communities that need time to bring in the crop and the harvest. Having an election after that is what we have in front of us.

I want to turn my attention now to the amendment that came from the Senate. As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre suggested, we do take issue with the author of this amendment and where it comes from. However, it is important to look at the amendment. It is not a long amendment. It simply brings up a point that, quite frankly, was not debated extensively in committee. It was to take a look at the religious significance of a provincial or municipal election, or a federal, provincial or a municipal referendum, and that the chief electoral officer may change the date of the fixed election.

Therefore, it still ascribes to the chief electoral officer the fact that he or she must follow the actual fixed election date calender generally but if these circumstances occur, there is the option that he or she may, not must, change the date.

Particularly for my friends in the Bloc, I would like to think of a circumstance where there is a referendum at the provincial level. Quebec has had this experience more than any other province in Canada. Would it make sense to actually have a fixed date for a federal election set, and at the same time there is a provincial referendum? As we know, a referendum in Quebec often does not just take the attention of Quebeckers. It often takes the attention of the whole country, as it should. It is about the federation itself.

It is reasonable for the chief electoral officer to look at the election date and, if he or she sees a conflict, he or she may decide that we should not have a federal election on the same date as, for example a referendum in Quebec on something as potent as whether Quebec remains in the federation. That is an example of why we should look at this.

This amendment would not change the spirit of the bill. It is simply a what-if scenario. As I have already mentioned and underlined, it would give the chief electoral officer an option. As an officer of Parliament, the chief electoral officer has certain key responsibilities, one being that he or she is accountable to Parliament and must abide by legislation of Parliament.

Bill C-16 , which is in front of us, has been agreed to and passed. The chief electoral officer would need to abide by it as a responsible officer of Parliament. It would simply provide the chief electoral office with the opportunity, if there is a conflict, to deal with it.

As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre said, notwithstanding that we have some problems with the messenger, although we will not shoot the messenger, in this case the Senate having sent it to us, the message is something that we certainly can live with. For that reason, we will quietly support the amendment. It is common sense but it could probably have been done by giving the authority to the chief electoral officer at another time. However, it is in front of us now and that is why it is important to acknowledge it and take a position on it now.

I want to move now to what the bill will mean, when it is passed, in terms of Canadians' confidence in our electoral system. Many more things need to be done in terms of real democratic reform to ensure every vote counts. I submit that at this point in the history of our country we do not have a system where every vote counts. However, at least this will be an opportunity to let Canadians know that, in this case, the next election will be in 2009.

We only need to look at the past couple of weeks where, sadly, the discussions and discourse in the House and around the country have been all about whether there will be an election, yes or no, and whether the government is in a position to get its elusive majority.

On the weekend, CBC had an interesting comedic overview of that. A skit was conducted as a sports broadcast and people were doing a comedy of what it is like when discussing politics. One asked, “Jim, do you think there is going to be an election?” The other responded no and they decided to discuss it the next day. They would act out the following day and have a commentary on whether there was going to be an election.

It is certainly an interesting conversation for some of us but for most Canadians it is an incredible waste of time, not to mention ink, airwaves and electricity. We should be spending our time talking about what we can do in Parliament, not speculating about when the election will be.

Canadians did not send us here to talk about when the next election will be and it is incumbent upon all of us to keep that in mind. When I go door to door and talk to my constituents about what concerns them, it is not about when the next election will be. When they do ask me whether there will be an election, I respond that 2009 is what is in that legislation and that as far as I am concerned that is when the next election will be.

That is why it is incredibly important that we support this bill and that it goes through as quickly as possible. Therefore, I do not think it is plausible or possible to support the government's motion to send the bill back to the Senate and get into that game of Ping-Pong. We need to pass the bill now so Canadians know there is a bill that has a fixed date for elections and that any manipulations or strategic moves by the government will be seen as just that because its own act will be in front of us saying that the next election is in 2009.

The bill is important because it gives us predictability and the government would not be able to manipulate the calendar. Canadians would know that, notwithstanding all the conversations that people have had in the political chattering classes, the next election will be in 2009. The whole gamesmanship of deciding when the time has come to get a majority would be put aside and we could get on to issues that matter, like the environment, the prosperity gap and ensuring that Canadians' health system will be there for them when they need it.

At the end of the day those are the issues that matter to Canadians, not whether the government can pull the plug, call an election and get a majority to do whatever it plans to do. I have some concerns about what the present government would do if it had a majority but I will not go down that path.

I was on the committee studying Bill C-16 and we looked at other jurisdictions. Ontario now has fixed date elections and it has been the practice in many other countries. Some people had concerns that this would mirror the American political model. I would allay their fears because we have other jurisdictions in Europe and elsewhere with Westminster traditions that have fixed date elections and it works for them.

When we do have fixed date elections we need to ensure there is no manipulation of the public purse. What I mean by that is if we had taken the suggestion of the Bloc to have fixed date elections in the spring, we could have seen the government come out with a budget with all sorts of goodies, which kind of sounds familiar, like the last budget we saw here to possibly manipulate citizens so it could get a favourable return on its investment, in other words, a majority government. Having the fixed date election in the fall makes sense.

Some work should be done on when political parties are allowed to spend money in order that we do not have a largesse of spending that benefits one party or another, whichever has the most cash in the bank so to speak. We also do not want perpetual elections like some people were concerned about with this legislation. That just requires us being responsible as parliamentarians

As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre just mentioned, we need to look at election expenses and the rules around election expenses and we need to tighten that up. My colleague put forward amendments to Bill C-2 to tighten that up so people would not have an advantage of playing around with finances to benefit them. When we get this bill passed, and I hope it is sooner rather than later, we will need to keep our eye on that. As with any legislation, once the legislation is passed, it inevitably changes the way things are done. We will need to look at the effects the bill might have on things like election expenses.

We hope people will not get into the habit spending a lot of money before a writ as well as during a writ because they know an election is coming, or we have candidates who are playing around with loopholes in the Election Expenses Act, like loans from someone with deep pockets and who owns a fairly large multinational corporation. We saw that in certain leadership contests where they did not pay back the loan and it is no problem. We must plug that loophole but there are others, people who own car dealerships, et cetera.

Work still needs to be done to make things fairer but this bill is a good start. Canadians will now know exactly when the next election will be. We need to focus on the bill, on what it sets out to do and on what all Canadians believe it should do, which is to give us a fixed election date. The government would no longer be able to play around and try to orchestrate its own defeat. We have responsible work being done in the House and taking away the government's ability to manipulate the date of an election will bring more fairness to the system.

We will talk at another time about what we can do in terms of reforming our democratic system but this is the first start. The NDP is proud that the government adopted our idea and we support it fully.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the second question. I have confidence in the new Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand. He appeared before us in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and told us about his work history. I had complete and utter confidence in Mr. Kingsley, as I have complete and utter confidence in everyone at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. However, rejecting this amendment is not a reflection of lack of confidence. It would be an aberration to include in legislation that a federal, provincial or municipal referendum could cause a change of date. We will simply avoid that risk and we will reject the amendment from the Liberal senators. It will not be included and the Chief Electoral Officer will therefore not have to make a possibly controversial decision.

I want to thank my colleague for reminding me about municipal elections. That was indeed one of the reasons why I asked that this be changed to May. I had forgotten. I raised this point to mention that I found and still find this bill to be flawed. It can be improved. In Quebec, municipal elections are also held the first Sunday in November. Under Bill C-16, we will have—

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion before us here today.

First of all, I would like to inform the government that the Bloc Québécois will support this motion that the House reject the amendment proposed by the Senate to Bill C-16, for the simple reason that it appears to be a dilatory amendment.

I would like to talk a little bit about the other chamber. It is made up of non-elected people who are appointed based on political patronage. We still maintain that the value of the Senate remains to be proven and this amendment reflects that.

Indeed, the amendment proposed by the Liberal senators in the other place ensures that a federal, provincial or municipal referendum would change the application of Bill C-16, which calls for fixed date elections. We could understand a federal referendum. We could also understand that there could be a provincial referendum. However, a municipal referendum is a different matter. First, we need only think of the number of municipalities in Quebec and Canada. Second, consider the number of issues that can lead to a municipal referendum.

My colleague the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was a municipal councillor here, in Gatineau. I do not know if he was in municipal politics when he lived in the Quebec City region, before becoming member for La Peltrie.

I was a municipal councillor in Boischatel, where I live, from 1987 to 1993. In municipal democracy, there are many reasons for holding a referendum. Citizens may sign the register to oppose a zoning change or a bylaw. In Boischatel, we almost had a referendum. There was opposition to replacing the police force vehicles. We could have made the decision to hold a referendum on replacing those vehicles, which had about 385,000 km, which would have cost several thousand dollars.

Imagine how ridiculous the Senate amendment is: a municipal referendum could lead to Canadian elections being postponed and this law becoming inoperative. In my mind this clearly demonstrates that the amendment is frivolous and ridiculous. That is why we agree with the government that this Senate amendment should be defeated.

In the last few minutes allocated to me, I would like to discuss Bill C-16. The Bloc Québécois reaffirmed that it is in favour of the principle of the bill that was studied by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, of which I am co-chair.

We had some reservations about the date chosen as polling day by the government, the third Monday in October. We would have expected the government to be a little more open-minded for one, simple reason: the members of the Bloc Québécois suggested the second Monday in May, a somewhat more pleasant time of year in terms of temperature. It is possible to have snow on the third Monday of October. That is the reality in a northern country, and in certain regions where the snow arrives earlier than in others. It is possible, although highly unlikely, that there could be a snowstorm in Windsor on the third Monday of October. However, in northern Quebec, Nunavut, Yukon or Labrador it is plausible that there would be a snowstorm on the third Monday of October.

That is why we in the Bloc Québécois proposed the second Monday in May. We introduced an amendment, but it was defeated in committee. That is democracy in action. We also suggested that the third Monday in October not be chosen simply because in Canada and Quebec, the Thanksgiving holiday always falls on the second Monday in October. Because of religious tradition or the Roman calendar, Easter never falls on the same date. Whereas Thanksgiving is always celebrated on the second Monday in October, whether that day is October 9, 10 or 12.

Advance polling will therefore take place on Thanksgiving weekend. This is probably the last long weekend when people can visit family out of town, and it is a time when people may be busier than usual, because they have to close up their vacation homes and cottages, turn off the water and so on. In addition, people travel across the border, as they take advantage of the long weekend to go away. If the third Monday in October were chosen, advance polling would take place on the second Monday in October, on Thanksgiving weekend. We believed that, to a certain extent, this could work against our goal of having the highest possible voter turnout.

Yesterday, the voter turnout in France was 84% or 85%. Clearly, they have a healthy democracy. Furthermore, a review of participation rates in federal elections here since 1960 reveals a downward slope, which is cause for concern. Duly elected representatives of the population are being chosen by fewer and fewer people over the years. People are losing interest in politics. Obviously, this is not good for democracy. That is why we, the Bloc Québécois, have suggested another date.

I would note that Bill C-16 would remove the Prime Minister's prerogative to call a general election at the most propitious and convenient time. Prime Minister Chrétien excelled at that. Our fusty senators' amendment comes as no surprise, because, quite simply, they want to hang on to the old-fashioned approach that enables them to bamboozle the opposition parties.

Prime Minister Chrétien was an expert at this. As soon as an opposition party got a new leader, Prime Minister Chrétien used the opportunity to call a snap election, thereby taking advantage of the newly elected leader's inexperience and the leadership convention, which is, of course, an event that divides the members of Parliament belonging to that party, who have to take sides and support one candidate or the other.

It is clear that the wounds have not yet healed among the Liberals on this side of the House who participated in the last leadership convention, which the current Leader of the Opposition won. A leadership race is a divisive event. Anyone who needs to be convinced of that has only to look at how Prime Minister Chrétien handled himself.

My party leader, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, was elected leader of the Bloc Québécois on March 15, 1997. Then, we had a general election on June 2, 1997.

On July 8, 2000, the Minister of Public Safety was elected leader of the Canadian Alliance. We have nearly forgotten that that party was once called the Reform Party. The party has changed names a number of times. It reminds me of new Coke, classic Coke and Coke zero. We have had a hard time keeping track of this party's name over the past few years. Its current name is the Conservative Party of Canada.

So, on July 8, 2000, the current public safety minister was chosen as party leader following the Canadian Alliance leadership race. Prime Minister Chrétien called an election to be held November 27, 2000, although the previous election had taken place on June 2, 1997, within the normal, usual or standard timeframe of four years. In fact, as we all know, the Constitution states that a term can last for up to five years, but the normal length is four years. Prime Minister Chrétien therefore took advantage of this opportunity to call an election.

On March 20, 2004, the current Prime Minister was elected leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and an election was called for June 28, 2004, once again, within the four-year time frame, on the occasion of a change in party leader.

Thus, I feel that Bill C-16 would remove the Prime Minister's prerogative to call an election when he or she feels the planets are best aligned to take the opposition parties by surprise.

For all these reasons—and I am sure we will have the opportunity to further discuss Bill C-16—I would like to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois will support this motion to reject the Senate's proposed amendment to Bill C-16.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that the official opposition in the House of Commons supports Bill C-16. When it was before this House earlier, we supported it wholeheartedly and spoke energetically in favour of it.

Repeatedly the House leader of the government speaks of irony. In fact, I think the walls of this extraordinary chamber are dripping with irony after his speech. However, he speaks of irony in the sense of delay, and of course the delay is on the part of the government on this unnecessary challenge of that minor amendment today.

Let me look at the other initiatives around delay. The House leader speaks of Bill C-43 and the delay there, but we started that last week. The government waited four months after tabling Bill C-43, the election through consultation of senators, to bring it forward. Why not four months ago?

He talked about Bill S-4, the bill on fixed terms for senators, and the fact that it has been held up in the Senate for over a year. This has not been held up in the Senate because of Bill S-4, because there is agreement on that. What there is not agreement on is that we should have the election of senators through consultation with the provinces, or whatever, before we redistribute the seats of the Senate fairly across this country.

How can any member of this House, and particularly of the government, support Bill S-4 without first supporting the other Senate motion to redistribute seats so there is less of the imbalance that so thoroughly disfavours Alberta and British Columbia at this time? I have colleagues in the government side from Alberta and British Columbia. It is inconceivable to me that they would think of altering in any way the status, the mandate, the credibility or the validation of the Senate without first sorting out that extremely unfair distribution for western Canada. This is where we are on that.

On Bill C-16, it is doublespeak, it is Orwellian, to hear the government House leader speak today about the Liberal side or Liberal senators delaying it. Good heavens, we could have had this passed before the Easter recess. We offered to rush it right through, get it to the Governor General and make it law before we left, but no, some bogus concept of this minor amendment as somehow frustrating the will of Parliament, the will of this House, was thrown up as a delaying tactic.

My goodness, the Conservatives refer to a referendum, as if a referendum called in some small municipality somewhere in this country would be allowed to dislodge the fixed election date. What we have to remember is that this would be with the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer, an officer of Parliament, in one of the most respected senior offices in this country and one of the offices most critical to the fair operation of our democratic process. It is nonsense to expect that this person at his or her discretion would knock off a federal date that had been set for four years in advance because of some local referendum. It is just nonsense. It would not happen and it could not happen. Therefore, that is no reason to slow this down.

The government House leader speaks of disrespect or whatever in the other place where they would dare make a minor amendment to a House bill that has gone through this process and was supported by all parties. The Senate, whatever one thinks about elected or non-elected legislative chambers at this stage in our democracy, exists as part of our democratic machinery. We all have some firm minds about that, I think, including in the Senate, in terms of having some election process for senators. However, the Senate exists as part of our democratic machinery. It has a very specific purpose, which of course is to bring second sober thought to what is thoughtfully determined in this House. When it finds some area where it feels a bill can be made better, the Senate has the perfect right and the democratic responsibility to suggest an amendment, which is what has been done in this case.

I can recall the process last fall when Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, passed through the House after several months of debate in committee and in the House. It then went to the Senate and we heard wailing and complaining from the government side that the Senate somehow was wasting everybody's time with this critical piece of legislation by not simply rubber-stamping it.

I think we all know now what happened in the Senate. There were over 100 amendments because it was a sloppy bill. There was no time as it was rushed through the process in the House. The Senate exercised its responsibilities properly by carefully looking at that massive, complex piece of legislation involving dozens of other statutes that needed to be amended as a consequence of it. The Senate came up with sensible, helpful arrangements and amendments that the House then of course accepted. That was not delay. That was the Senate doing its work in our democratic framework of institutions.

I will go back to this issue of electing, through consulting provincial bodies during provincial elections, for the appointment of senators into vacancies that happen in any one of those jurisdictions. I simply will say that this is a good piece. Let us get that moving. Why did we wait four months? Why have we waited a year without some serious consequence and a discussion of redistribution?

Let me just turn, then, to Bill C-16 itself, because this is a completely appropriate piece of legislation. It was supported in this House. Adding a final little fail-safe in case there could be a problem through a referendum process is just good sense. The Senate has suggested that, which is what we are debating here today. We are in favour of that and therefore are opposed to the government's motion.

In regard to Bill C-16 itself and fixed election dates, we know, and the House debates on Bill C-16 I think made it very clear through speeches on behalf of all parties, that this is a sensible further step in the democratic reform of Canada. It was made very clear that the overwhelming number of democracies in the world have fixed election dates and that there is a range of advantages to fixed election dates, including that it gives some predictability to government business.

Therefore, the government can put forward legislation and have the effective administration of legislation, with a timetable, knowing that it will not be dislodged short of a non-confidence vote or a national emergency. Therefore, the business of the government and the people of Canada can be done more efficiently. It can also be done more efficiently in terms of cost. Having an electoral commission and electoral office idling full time to be ready for an election that could come at any day is not an efficient use of resources.

This is also effective in terms of voter turnout, which is perhaps one of the most critical issues of fixed election dates, something with which I think all members and all parties of this House have been in agreement. For people who are first time voters, be they students, new Canadians or seniors, we can have civics classes in schools, universities and communities to ensure that people are fully engaged in the electoral discussion of the various policies being put forward in the election by various parties. That could enhance interest and voter turnout, which of course leads to a healthier democracy.

Of course in a country such as Canada it is also immensely important to have a fixed date that avoids inclement weather. The last election in this country was held in winter. Sadly, we saw a continued reduction in voter turnout and of course, unless one has the very good fortune to live in Vancouver as I do, winter weather can be very disruptive to voter turnout. That is very important. We also want to avoid the summer holiday breaks, which we can by having a fixed election date in the early fall or late spring, in order to increase voter turnout.

For all of these reasons, it is good sound public policy and we all support it, so good heavens, let us get on with it. Let us not delay this any further. The concept of a referendum in a small community is so inconceivable as to be insignificant. It should not slow down the passage of this legislation. With the support of members of the House today, and with the vote tomorrow, I believe, or whenever we are going to vote on this, we could have this as the law of Canada and as real democratic reform and we could have it immediately.

I just suggest that it is a test to the sincerity of every member of the House in terms of the need for this reform, that we not be distracted by a small amendment. It is the result of the Senate doing its job of carefully looking to see if it could possibly be improved, which to the credit of the House, could only be improved by a tiny amendment of really no consequence at all.

I speak in opposition to rejecting this amendment and in full support of moving ahead quickly in the House right now, so that it can go on to the Governor General and become law as soon as possible.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why members of the Liberal Party are anxious to avoid an early election at any cost and why they fear there are conspiracy theories out there as reasons why this would be happening. I know the member for Vancouver Quadra is not looking to avoid an election in that way because he is planning on retiring from the House after many years of good service, but his colleagues fear meeting the voters one more time. Perhaps that is why they are anxious to see this happen quickly.

However, as I pointed out earlier, the bill could have been law right now had the Senate passed it without inserting this objectionable amendment. Members need to think about how this amendment was inserted. The bill was there for just about half a year and over that time the amendment was never discussed or put forward in committee. The Senate dealt with the bill at committee where it was approved as it existed coming from the House. It was only on the very last day, at the very last minute, that the amendment was proposed at third reading and was attached to the bill.

If the member wants to know who was playing games, it is pretty clear where the games were being played. They were being played in the Senate where the amendment was attached at the very last minute.

That is not acceptable to us. We have made it clear why the change is unacceptable. Had the amendment been proposed at committee, there would have been an opportunity for it to be examined there, but the Senate did not do that. It was attached right at the end.

If the Liberals are concerned that it has not become law yet, they need only look at their friends in the Liberal dominated Senate, who chose to keep the bill from becoming law by attaching the amendment. They chose to water down the bill with the amendment, and that is the most significant part. It creates more opportunities for fixed date elections to be cancelled. It creates more opportunity for manipulation and uncertainty in our system. That is exactly what Bill C-16 was seeking to prevent.

By telling the Senate that we want it to restore the original intent of the bill, that fixed date elections will indeed be fixed date elections, we would be strengthening our democracy in a very positive way.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the government House leader's speech. One of the themes of his speech was delay. The irony of the opposition to this very minor amendment from the Senate is that the government House leader and his party are actually delaying the passage of the bill. Simply by accepting this minor procedural amendment, it could go to the Governor General this evening. It does not have to go back to the Senate.

By opposing the amendment, the government is deliberately delaying the passage of Bill C-16, its own legislation, which all parties accepted and supported, by sending it back to the Senate. It is inconceivable to me that this could be presented by the government House leader unless it is a deliberate stalling tactic. Those members do not want to see fixed election dates until they know whether they want to go to the Governor General and have a dissolution outside of a non-confidence vote. They could do that anyway under Bill C-16, but it would be inconceivable for the Governor General to accept, short of a national emergency, a request for dissolution within Bill C-16 if there were a no confidence vote. The government is trying to keep its options open.

Is the government House leader sincere in wanting to get Bill C-16 through, or is this really a stalling tactic to keep his options open?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

moved:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House disagrees with the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is with more than a little frustration that I rise today to debate an amendment to Bill C-16. Let me be clear from the outset, the government supports, in fact initiated Bill C-16 for fixed date elections, but the government opposes the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-16. It is unnecessary and it weakens the original legislation.

For more than a century, people from all over the world have looked to Canada as a model of freedom and responsible government. In fact, members of my own family took refuge here after fleeing repression.

They were seeking freedom, hope and opportunity. They were attracted by a country where they had a say, where political leaders were accountable to them and where government was responsive, effective and stable.

Just as John Diefenbaker said more than six decades ago, for those people, and for all Canadians, “Parliament is more than procedure; it is the custodian of the nation's freedom”.

In Canada our government has its roots in the British parliamentary system. In our short history we have adapted those ancient traditions to make them more relevant to the Canadian experience. We have made reasonable incremental changes that make government better for Canadians.

As Nova Scotia prepares for 250th anniversary celebrations of Canada's first democracy next year, many of us reflect on the impact that responsible government has had on our country. It was a step forward in making government more accountable, fairer and more democratic.

Over the years, our system has been modified to ensure that the government is listening to the people it serves. Bill C-16 represents only the most recent changes. It aims to strengthen our democracy by improving responsibility, transparency and equity.

It establishes fixed dates for elections every four years on the third Monday in October. Fixed dates take the guesswork out of the electoral process and level the playing field for the Chief Electoral Officer, for political parties and, more important, for voters.

Our government does not believe that the governing party should be permitted to time an election to exploit conditions favourable to its re-election. Bill C-16 would put an end to governance according to poll results. It would prevent snap elections such as those called by Jean Chrétien in 1997 and 2000, which predictably resulted in record low turnouts. In both cases the vote was seen to have been called for the sole purpose of capitalizing on political circumstance on a calculation of partisan interest.

Bill C-16 would eliminate situations where decisions on election timing would be based on best interests of a political party rather than the best interests of Canadians. The bill would empower governments and parliamentary committees to set out their agenda well in advance with certainty.

All the parties agree that, above all, elections belong to the people. We believe that by getting more Canadians to participate in the election process, Bill C-16 will make it possible to strengthen our democracy.

Passage of this legislation will allow citizens to plan to participate in their nation's electoral process. That participation is the bedrock upon which our democracy is built.

Bill C-16 was passed in the House of Commons without amendments. It was debated very thoroughly in the House of Commons and also in the committee on procedure and house affairs. It was passed in the House of Commons and was sent to the Senate where it was examined in detail by the Senate's committee on legal and constitutional affairs. After a detailed period of scrutiny and a detailed process, that committee supported the passage of the bill without any amendments.

Various expert witnesses have appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. These two committees have extensively examined the bill.

No party in the House of Commons suggested an amendment to this legislation. Neither the House committee nor the Senate committee felt it was necessary to amend Bill C-16. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that at the very last minute an amendment was passed which has never been subject to any detailed scrutiny.

One has to wonder why the amendment was never presented for debate in committee. Perhaps there, reasoned examination would have pointed out the obvious flaws. The Leader of the Opposition supported Bill C-16 without amendment, yet he was not able to persuade Liberal senators to follow suit. He could not get that job done either.

I will turn my attention to the proposed amendment.

The proposed amendment to Bill C-16 would change the existing provision of the bill that would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to recommend a change to the polling day in the event of a conflict such as a provincial election or a day of cultural or religious significance.

This existing provision would allow the Chief Electoral Officer to recommend to the governor in council that the polling day be either the following day or a week later.

The proposed amendment would alter the bill so that it would explicitly allow the Chief Electoral Officer to recommend a change in the polling day in the event of a federal, provincial or municipal referendum. It is my contention that the proposed amendment weakens the original intent of the bill, the bill that was endorsed by all parties in the House of Commons.

Instead of safeguarding election dates for manipulation, the amendment would make it easier for governing parties to manipulate election dates. If the amendment were to be adopted, it would open the door to a prime minister putting off a scheduled election by calling a referendum on the same day. With the amendment, a national election would be cancelled because of a municipal referendum. I find it difficult to imagine any situation where a municipal referendum would be so important that it would result in a date of a federal election being cancelled, but the statute would provide for exactly that to happen.

We on this side of the House do not believe democracy or accountability in government is strengthened or enhanced in any way when a referendum to build a hockey arena in small town Ontario could cancel the date of a national election. The original legislation was drafted with enough flexibility to avoid conflicts in a limited variety of situations, but that should be as limited as possible. The amendment to which we object expands, not limits, the potential for fixed dates to be altered.

Under Bill C-16, neither the prime minister of the day nor the mayor of a small town could change the fixed election date.

In short, the amendment is unnecessary. The original bill has built in flexibility for the Chief Electoral Officer to adjust an election date in the event of a legitimate conflict.

Second, we believe the Liberal amendment weakens the original legislation by making the date of elections more vulnerable to manipulation, not surprising from a party that engaged in this kind of manipulation so regularly in the past.

Today I urge all members of the legislature to join with the government to oppose this unnecessary amendment and to oppose it in short order. Let us send the Senate a message. Let us tell senators that pointless amendments to important legislation are not acceptable to the House or to the Canadian people.

Had the amendment not been sloppily attached by the Senate at the very last possible moment, fixed dates for elections would be the law right now. Unfortunately, the unelected Liberal Senate and its continuing campaign against democratic reform blocked it. Consider the irony. The elected House of Commons passes a bill to fix dates for elections. Then an unelected Liberal dominated Senate passed an amendment to water down the law, without even committee consideration of that amendment, and, by doing so, prevented the democratic reform bill from becoming law.

The Senate telling members of the House of Commons how elections should work is an irony. Let us urge it to reconsider its amendment quickly so Bill C-16 could be in place in time for the next federal election.

As I said, Bill C-16 was passed in the House of Commons without amendments. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs also supported passing this legislation without amendments.

It has undergone heavy scrutiny and has been found to be acceptable, but today we have been asked to consider an amendment that has not been examined in any detail. We are being asked to debate a frivolous amendment that is designed to frustrate the government's agenda of democratic reform. An amendment of this sort feeds public cynicism and erodes the accountability that Bill C-16 seeks to foster in government.

The kind of procedural manoeuvring being employed by the Senate to hold up the passage of Bill C-16 brings to mind the game playing that has left Bill S-4, the bill for Senate term limits, languishing in that place for an unbelievable 328 days so far.

Bill S-4 is legislation that proposes to limit Senate terms to eight years. It was sent to the Senate for consideration on May 30, 2006. That is when it was introduced there.

Last spring, the Special Senate Committee on Senate Reform examined Bill S-4. That committee held extensive hearings on the matter.

In October of last year it reported its findings, which supported the government's incremental approach to Senate reform. Despite that endorsement, Bill S-4 is now the subject of a second round of hearings by a Senate standing committee, a committee that is duplicating the efforts of the earlier special committee.

The Leader of the Opposition said he supports the proposal for Senate term limits. He said he hopes Bill S-4 will pass. Yet, he cannot convince Liberal senators to follow suit.

Once again, the Leader of the Opposition cannot get the job done.

Just as I did last week, I will use this opportunity to once again ask the members of the official opposition to urge their colleagues in the Senate to put an end to this game playing, stop thwarting constructive change and get on with the job Canadians want and expect them to do.

Bill C-16 represents an important step in the modernization of our political process. It is a reasonable step that would make government more accountable and more transparent. For these reasons, it should be passed without amendment.

The government opposes the Senate amendment and urges all members of the House to advise the Senate that Bill C-16 should be restored.

The House proceeded to the consideration of the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

Senate Appointment Consultations Act

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to speak to Bill C-43, the consultations act. I think everyone understands, who has read the bill, that this is not to provide for the election of senators, but to consult provinces where there are vacancies in the Senate on who might be appointed then by the prime minister. The prime minister will still appoint senators at the end of the day.

It is passing strange to hear the House leader speak of delay. Bill C-43 was first tabled in the House four months ago, and it is only today coming forward for debate. There were many other opportunities to bring it forward. I do not think it should be a purpose of the government to complain about delay. The government had control of it and it has only now brought it forward for debate.

Also, Bill C-16, the fixed election dates, as I mentioned in my intervention, has been stopped in its tracks for want of a minor amendment from the Senate. If the government members had the respect for the Senate, as they suggest, then they would think carefully about the role of the chamber of second sober thoughts. It has thoughtfully looked at the process and determined there is one failure in terms of fixed election dates. Therefore, it has suggested there be a slight amendment for that purpose. I think there must be some other reason why the government will not go along with that. It is in the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer. That discretion by that officer of Parliament would not be exercised lightly and not in the way the government House leader suggests.

Those on this side of the House have a great deal of respect for the purpose and the work of the Senate.

One example of the value to Canadians of that extraordinary group of people, and they are for the main part, is former Senator Kirby and his health committee. Over a period of years, I think they did the finest work on the ideas to reform and protect the health services of our country. With due respect to all the other commissions across the country and internationally that have looked at it, Senator Kirby's report on health care reform really hit the bell and resonated with Canadians. In fact, very similar conclusions that Senator Kirby's health committee report came to were concurred in by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Chaoulli case. It made many of the same observations about the health of our health care services and what needed to be done to protect them and the rights of citizens under those.

As well, last year Senator Kirby's committee published its mental health report, recommending a national mental health commission. It was done in a way that was thoughtful and sensitive of individuals whose lives were touched, through a family member or friend, by the horrible situation of mental illness.

Those are just examples of how valuable the other place can be to the rights and privileges and services of Canadians.

Let me talk a bit about consultation. We have heard a lot from the government House leader about the government wanting to consult Canadians and it is Canadians who should be consulted, in the words of this bill, for the appointments still of senators.

It is passing strange that Bill S-4, which has been mentioned, Bill C-16, Bill C-43, which we are discussing today, and the Federal Accountability Act, which deals with issues of democratic accountability, have been brought forward by the government before it even put forward its consultation plan.

We know with respect to Bill C-43 that Ontario, Quebec were not consulted about it. Nor were the other provinces or territories. The Governments of Ontario and Quebec have expressed their opposition to this bill as has Yukon. The consultation process was announced a couple of months ago by the Conservative government. It was going to hire a polling firm and a think tank for $900,000, which turns out to be an ideologically based organization. It has come out in favour of keeping the current electoral system in our country, denigrating the idea of proportional representation or any part of it. It was a bogus consultation across the country.

The government did not even wait for that consultation, bogus as it might be, before it brought forward its legislation. That is a strange process. We have seen criticism and problems with it since it started.

There is another irony here. Electoral reform, as another aspect of democratic reform, was put in the Speech from the Throne. The NDP put forward that amendment and it was accepted by the government of the day. In time a legislative committee was set up to look at that issue and to have real cross-country consultations conducted by members of Parliament, who have the responsibility to do that consultation, not polling companies and overpaid ideological think tanks holding a few so-called deliberative discussions behind closed doors. We must get on with that work before too long, certainly before we go ahead with rash changes to our electoral system.

Another irony is this. The Law Commission of Canada, which is an independent, statutory public body that works independently of government, came up with a report in the spring of 2004 on electoral reform in Canada. I invite government members, who would care to rise for commentary and questions, to comment on whether they have read that report. I invite anyone who rises to first comment on the wisdom of that report on two aspects; first, the indepth research that was done; and second, the indepth consultation across the country.

I have read a number of these reports from different countries. I know the respect that the Law Commission of Canada is held in throughout the Commonwealth and the common law world. The report is perhaps the finest treatment of the question of electoral reform in a modern democracy that has ever been written. I look forward to commentary from government members on that.

I guess the triple irony is that the Law Commission of Canada, as announced in the government's economic update in the fall, has had its budget cut to zero as of April 1. It is extraordinary. This is while we are paying ideological flacks $900,000 to gather some bogus public consultation on democratic reform, yet we have this respected body. I am sure some members have not even read the report.

That is another aspect of democratic responsibility. Imagine having the Law Commission of Canada Act, an act of Parliament, disrespected by the government. There are statutory responsibilities under that act to perform services for Canadians. The government, without having the courage to bring legislation to repeal the Law Commission of Canada Act, has cut its budget. It sounds kind of like the gun registry. I do not want to get too off course here, but it is an elementary question of democracy. It has had no courage to bring legislation before this House to repeal the gun registry. Rather it frustrates it. It gives endless time for people to register their guns.

They are laughing across the way. Whenever we talk about democracy and the gun legislation, let us remember earlier this week when the Canadian Police Association came to Ottawa to talk to parliamentarians. The single most important message that the president, on behalf of the police organization, had for us as parliamentarians was it used the gun registry 6,000 times a day, including the long gun registry. He said it was valuable.

Let me now turn to the specifics of Bill C-43, reform of the Senate. I will talk about Bill C-43 in a different context, in the context of Senate reform exactly. Yes, members on this side of the House are in favour of reform. Members in the official opposition are in favour of Senate reform. However, it has to be comprehensive reform and not piecemeal reform.

The trouble with piecemeal reform is this. The Senate, the traditions and the institution of that important body of Parliament, are a Rubik's cube of at least three colours. Two of those colours represent the selection process, including the term of office, and the mandate. Remember we have to think about the mandate of its relationship to the House. If they are identical with identical electoral status, then we will get gridlock. To avoid that, if the mandate is going to be exact with the same electoral legitimacy, then we had better have a dispute resolution mechanism to resolve gridlock when it occurs or the governance of the people of Canada could be frustrated.

The third colour in the Rubik's cube is distribution. Of the issues before us today, this perhaps is the most important. I look across the aisle at government members from British Columbia and Alberta. I cannot believe government members from British Columbia and Alberta could support giving greater powers, greater credibility and greater authority to the other place without a redistribution of seats to fairly treat British Columbia and Alberta, which are woefully underrepresented in the other place.

Let me quote from the preamble of Bill C-43, second clause:

WHEREAS the Government of Canada has undertaken to explore means to enable the Senate better to reflect the democratic values of Canadians and respond to the needs of Canada’s regions;

The bill tries to selectively deal with electoral matters and bring in greater credibility, therefore, power to the Senate, but leaves British Columbia and Alberta so woefully underrepresented.

Let me go back to the government House leader's point that Bill S-4, the bill introduced in the other place to deal with fixed terms for the appointment of senators, has lots of positive support. The trouble is this creates another problem that has to be dealt with on distribution. Other senators, Liberal senators and a former Progressive Conservative senator, put forward, for consideration by the same Senate committee, the idea that there be a redistribution by giving more seats to the four western provinces so the horrid imbalance and disadvantage to the west could be corrected, and without constitutional change as well. It would be an addition of extra Senate seats, but it would balance, for the first time, the rights of the people of western Canada.

This is why Bill S-4 has been held up for the last year in the Senate. It is not because of term limits. Everybody agrees there should be term limits. It is to get the distribution and that is the Rubik's cube that has to come into conformity before we can give greater mandate or greater credibility. Therefore, let us do it all at once.

I keep hearing that we cannot have constitutional change, that we cannot possibly open the Constitution to deal with something of such importance.This timidity would make the Fathers of Confederation blush if they thought they could not do anything to the institution in a constitutional way. One can only think of what would have happened if those fathers meeting in Charlottetown had the timidity of the members of the government today who say that we cannot go near the Constitution.

Let us think carefully about this but let us do it all at once, by all means, and let us do it comprehensively and do it properly.

I want to talk very briefly about other areas of electoral and democratic reform which have been raised by the House leader.

Parliamentary reform is very important. We saw with the last Liberal government a number of elements of parliamentary reform that came in, sometimes by resolution of opposition members at the time. One was the three line whip by the former Liberal government to allow for votes of conscience, free votes, two line whips for people not in cabinet and full votes of conscience. We see that regularly in this party in official opposition. We saw it regularly in the previous Parliament of the previous Liberal government. We do not see it across the aisle here. I do not recall, and I try to watch quite carefully, one vote that has been brought forward where members of the government have been, apparently, free to vote.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend raises two very important questions.

On the first point I will have to acknowledge that he is indeed correct in that this government has very few problems with the involvement that Céline Dion has had so far in our Senate term limits bill. Whatever her multitude of talents, I do not believe she is responsible for the obstruction that has occurred in the Senate or for the inability to persuade Liberal senators to follow the lead of their leader and get them to fast track that bill. Actually, “fast track” is a silly concept because it has been there for 325 days. Instead, I should say “actually deal with the bill”.

Thus, the member is absolutely correct. It is the Liberal leader who is responsible for that failure to get his own senators to follow his lead. It is his weakness and not the weakness of Céline Dion, who no doubt is very strong in many fields.

On the other question, which is the question of fixed date elections in Bill C-16, let us remember that this is our bill and we very much want to see it in place. If the Liberal Party was so keen on having that become law and having fixed date elections established and if the Liberals actually believed they wanted to see it in place, then they should not have amended it at the eleventh hour. It would have been law today had they not put in place an amendment at the eleventh hour.

Let us examine what that amendment was. It was an amendment that would have had the effect of saying that if a small town of 450 people in northern Ontario decided it wanted to have a referendum on a name change or if another town somewhere in Canada wanted to have a referendum on whether to build an arena, a federal election would have to cancelled.

We do not think that is a basis for cancelling a federal election. In fact, that undermines and defeats the entire purpose of Bill C-16, which is to create an element of certainty so that there cannot be that kind of manipulation of election dates and elections will occur at regular intervals.

That is why we are coming back to the House on Monday to ask the House to communicate to the Senate our wish that the central, original elements of Bill C-16 to establish genuine fixed date elections come into place. We are confident that the House will send that message to the Senate. We hope that in the Senate, if the Liberals are serious about wanting it to come into force, they will heed that message from the Commons and respect the important role of this chamber as the paramount chamber.

As long as the Senate consists of appointed senators, they should be respectful of the wishes of this chamber on important questions of principle, particularly questions of elections and democratic reform. The irony of the Senate questioning the House of Commons on its decisions on when elections should occur, on how our democracy works, is so deep that I am amazed the Liberals can stand in their places and raise questions about it.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, may I first perhaps help the government House leader out of a mistake that he made? I am sure it was unintentional. I know he would not have intentionally mentioned the leader of the official opposition by name, so he must have been referring to Céline Dion, one of the world's best performers, when he mentioned that name, and Canadians are all very proud to be citizens of the same country.

The government House leader mentioned Bill C-16, the fixed election date bill, as an example of the government's intention to further democratize government institutions of this country, but I note something strange about that. Just before the break three weeks ago, Bill C-16 came back from the Senate with a very minor procedural amendment. It was not significant at all. It was completely in line with the other provisions of that statute, which would have provided some flexibility to avoid election dates and conflicts between municipal or provincial and federal elections by having some discretion in the Chief Electoral Officer.

It was a very minor change. If the government was truly sincere in its wish to see fixed election dates moved quickly ahead, the opposition offered the option to fast track it, to get it through and have royal assent that very evening before the House of Commons broke for its recess. Strangely, that was refused. It was refused not because it was a substantial amendment, but because, one is compelled to suspect, the government did not want a fixed election date provision that would allow for a dissolution only on a non-confidence vote before the four year term came up.

If the government had agreed with that passage, it would have removed the ability the Prime Minister now has to do what he was critical of past prime ministers doing in the past, and prime ministers of both ruling parties, by the way, and that is to seek dissolution without a non-confidence situation. If the Prime Minister wanted to keep his options open for having a quick election, which he said he did not want to do, he was keeping his options open by that stall.

It is still stalled, which is extraordinary. It does not speak well of the Prime Minister's intentions and credibility when he says he wants fixed terms and he does not want prime ministers to fool around with a dissolution without a non-confidence vote, but then refuses quick passage.

Let me put this to the government House leader. Why will the government not accept this offer to fast track the bill now, get royal assent, get on with it, and check off a piece of democratic reform that many of us in the House think is long overdue and which the official opposition supports? Why will he and his government not take advantage of this opportunity to fast track that provision of democratic reform?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

moved that Bill C-43, An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open the debate on Bill C-43, the Senate Appointment Consultations Act, which is important legislation to make Canada's democratic institutions better. It also represents another step in the positive reform of the Senate undertaken by this government.

This bill follows through on the promise made to the people of Canada in the Speech from the Throne to “explore means to ensure that the Senate better reflects both the democratic values of Canadians and the needs of Canada's regions”. More importantly, this bill strengthens the pillars of our proud Canadian democracy. Bill C-43 not only strengthens but also revitalizes and modernizes some of our traditional Canadian values. What I am talking about, of course, is what Prime Minister John George Diefenbaker called the “legacy of freedom” cherished by all Canadians.

In 1960, Prime Minister Diefenbaker's definition of Canadian values included the right to “be free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, and free to choose those who shall govern my country”.

The right to choose who will govern our country or the right to vote is perhaps our most precious and fundamental right, something that has been in our thoughts this week as we mark the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We on this side of the House are proud and honoured to be part of a Conservative parliamentary tradition of expanding rights to Canadians, including particularly the right to vote.

It was Sir Robert Borden's wartime government that first extended the right to vote to women who had close relatives in the armed forces through the Military Voters Act of 1917.

At the dawn of 1919 all women were enfranchised with the enactment of the Act to Confer Electoral Franchise Upon Women, again by Borden's Conservative government.

Likewise, in 1960 Prime Minister Diefenbaker put an end to what he rightly considered an unfair law that forced native people to choose between their right to vote and their treaty rights. Giving aboriginal people the right that was granted to them at Confederation was an ideal to which Prime Minister Diefenbaker had long been dedicated. He noted this in his memoirs:

I felt it was so unjust that they didn't have the vote.I brought it about as soon as I could after becoming prime minister.

Diefenbaker's government granted status Indians the right to vote, without having to give up their treaty rights on March 10, 1960, thus eliminating once and for all voting rights restrictions based on race or religion in Canada.

Our government is following the course charted by our predecessors in Parliament and strengthening the voice of the Canadian people in the Senate, one of our most valuable institutions. We had told Canadians that our government would be mobilizing and democratizing the Senate so that they could have a say in the appointment of their senators. It is time that all Canadians be allowed to exercise the most fundamental right in any democracy, namely the right to vote, in the selection of those who will represent them as senators.

As soon as it took office, our government undertook, as promised, a process to strengthen democracy.

The first legislation passed in this Parliament was the government Bill C-4 that created a review of party registration rules, and just before Christmas, we finally secured passage of the Federal Accountability Act. From a democratic reform perspective, the act reduced the influence of big money in election campaigns and imposed new donation limits and disclosure requirements on those who seek public office.

We have, again with the support of our colleagues in the opposition, passed legislation in the Commons to establish fixed dates for general elections, that is, every four years in October.

Just like the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-16 represents a meaningful improvement to the democratic landscape without requiring a constitutional amendment. Ironically, the Liberal Senate has blocked it from becoming law by amending it at the last minute. We will be asking the Senate to remove that inappropriate amendment so that fixed dates for elections can become law.

Bill C-31 will enhance the integrity of the electoral process. It is currently awaiting approval in the Senate and we would like to see it passed as soon as possible, so that it can be put in place for the next general election.

As we know, citizen involvement is fundamental to any democratic institution. Unfortunately, Canadians have had no involvement in the selection of their senators.

There is one exception. In 1990, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney appointed Stan Waters to the Senate after he was selected in a Senate election sponsored by the province of Alberta.

This week, the Prime Minister told us another exception is coming, with his intent to appoint Bert Brown to the Senate, also chosen by Albertans in a vote to represent them.

These are the harbingers of change and the democratization that will be made a permanent fixture in our Canadian democracy, allowing Canadians a say in who will represent them in the Senate, strengthening our Canadian democracy.

Bill C-43 moves to make this happen by immediately involving Canadians in the process.

This bill will enable the government to consult Canadians about the people who will be representing them in the Senate. It is also an important step in the evolution and modernization of a great Canadian institution.

Furthermore, this bill recognizes that citizens—not political friends or big donors—are in the best position to advise the Prime Minister about the people who should speak on their behalf in their institutions. We know that Canadians think it is time to act on this idea.

Bill C-43 will do more than enable Canadians to have their say about the representatives who will be making decisions on their behalf here in Ottawa. It also guarantees that those representatives will be accountable for the decisions they make.

Consulting the Canadian public on Senate appointments will help to boost the Senate's legitimacy in the eyes of Canadians by transforming it into a more modern, more democratic, and more accountable institution that reflects the core values of Canadians.

Senate reform has been something of a national preoccupation for more than a century now, consuming a great deal of time, energy, effort and attention, almost since Confederation in fact.

Well-meaning and reasonable proposals to improve the Senate have sadly become bound up in the broader national pursuit of omnibus constitutional reform, and those efforts to modernize the Senate came to naught.

Ultimately, of course, we know that fundamental reform of the Senate will require complex, lengthy and multilateral constitutional change. There does not exist, sadly, at present, the national consensus or will required to engage in the inevitably long and potentially contentious rounds of negotiations that would be involved.

Some people say that it would be best to do nothing. They just want to shrug their shoulders and say they cannot do what must be done. That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition did this week. Others prefer to close their eyes and wait until some other time when all of the issues concerning the Senate can be resolved at once.

That is not what the government thinks, nor is it what Canadians think. We believe that Canadians expect more from their national institutions and their government. In fact, that is what they have told us. They know that some Senate reforms are within our grasp, and they want us to act.

There are, of course, other elements of a reformed Senate that will have to wait for another day, most notably redressing the inequalities of provincial representation. However, our step-wise approach will lay the groundwork for a strong foundation for any future change.

I am pleased to note that during the consultations of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Reform last fall, leading constitutional scholars agreed with the government's interpretation that the approach taken in Bill C-43 is legally valid without a constitutional amendment.

Speaking of that Senate special committee, I would like to use the example of another piece of legislation, Bill S-4, as clear evidence that Canadians need and deserve an upper chamber that is more democratic and more accountable to them.

Bill S-4 is legislation that proposes to limit Senate terms to eight years. Bill S-4 was introduced in the Liberal dominated Senate for consideration on May 30, 2006.

Last spring the upper chamber struck a Special Senate Committee on Senate Reform to examine the subject matter of Bill S-4. The committee held exhaustive hearings with witnesses, including the Prime Minister, ministers from several provinces and constitutional experts. In October of last year it reported its findings, which supported the government's approach.

Let me emphasize the point that the special Senate committee with its Liberal Party majority, in its report, endorsed the government's incremental approach to Senate reform. It went so far as to pronounce itself hopeful that the government would continue the momentum of reform it began with Bill S-4.

Paradoxically, however, Liberal members of the Senate brought the momentum of reform, so admired by the committee, to a screeching tortuous halt. Bill S-4 is now the subject of a second round of hearings by a Senate standing committee, a committee that is essentially duplicating the efforts of the special committee.

Despite the endorsement of the special Senate committee, Bill S-4 languishes in the upper chamber still, an astounding 325 days after its introduction.

This is all the more remarkable when one considers that the Liberal Party leader says he supports term limits for senators. He even bravely declared months ago that he would get the Liberal senators to finally deal with the bill. According to the Canadian Press, Dion's decision “Breaks an impasse in the Senate”. Despite his bold declarations, he could not get it done. More Liberal senators continue to obstruct and delay the Senate term limits bill.

A national institution that is truly accountable to the people would not engage in this political muscle flexing for almost a full year so far. An institution that is truly responsive to the people it purports to serve would not employ these recalcitrant procedural manoeuvres for the sole purpose of frustrating the government's agenda, an agenda endorsed by Canadians.

I would like to take this opportunity to once again implore members of the official opposition to urge their colleagues in the Senate to stop playing games, stop resisting constructive change, and get on with the job that Canadians expect and want them to do.

The government rejects the tactics employed by some senators and is taking action to respond to the wishes of Canadians on the subject of Senate reform.

In conclusion, Bill C-43, the Senate appointment consultations act, will strengthen and revitalize the very values that define us as Canadians, values such as democracy and accountability in government.

Indeed, it extends to Canadians the most fundamental right of all, the right to vote, by advancing the principle that Canadians should have a say in who speaks for them in the Senate.

The government believes Canadians should have that right. Bill C-43 not only allows Canadians to indicate who they would like to represent them, it ensures that the people they select are required to account for their actions. In fact, the bill proposes rigorous standards of accountability for nominees, similar to the ones Parliament has put in place for the Commons through the Federal Accountability Act's amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

Bill C-43 is a realistic and achievable Senate modernization measure. It will not have to go through official constitutional amendment procedures. This is not a bill to amend the Constitution, and there is nothing in it that requires a constitutional revision. That is the government's position.

Rather, this is an important step that is part of a gradual approach. The ultimate goal is to bring the Senate into line with the democratic values of Canadians. We need to strengthen democracy. The act to provide for consultations concerning Senate appointments lays the foundation for future changes that will transform Canada's Senate from a 19th century institution into one fit for the 21st century.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with the debate on the opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will begin debate, as I said earlier, on one of the government's bills to modernize the Senate of Canada, Bill C-43. This is an act to provide for consultations with the electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate.

In fact, yesterday the Prime Minister announced that Bert Brown would finally take his seat in the Senate after being elected twice by the people of Alberta. For those who say it cannot be done, we are getting it done. We will continue to get the job done for the other provinces, with the bill, so they too can elect senators. The Senate elections bill, along with the bill to limit terms of senators to eight years will achieve meaningful Senate reform. Meanwhile, we have talked about constitutional reform. We do not think it is necessary. It can be done without it.

However, in response to the other question raised by the opposition House leader on Bill C-16, we will be bringing it forward. We have indicated that we will bring forward a motion to ask that the amendments by the Senate be removed and to communicate that to the Senate. We will bring that motion forward on Monday. We believe we have the support in the House to have that secured so we can have fixed date elections that cannot be tampered with. That will be on the agenda for Monday, followed by Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill. BillC-43 will be the backup bill on that day. That is the Senate consultations.

Tuesday, April 24 and Thursday, April 26 shall be allotted days.

On Wednesday, we will resume debate on BillC-52, the budget implementation bill, if it has not been completed Monday. It will be followed by Bill C-40 on sales tax and Bill C-33 on income tax.

Friday, April 27, we will continue with those same finance bills.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader would describe for us his plan for the business of the House for the balance of this week and to the end of next week. Specifically, during that timeframe, could he indicate the fate of Bill C-16, dealing with fixed election dates? Will the minister confirm that he has no intention of recalling Bill C-16 for further action in the House during the life of this Parliament.

With respect to Bill C-30, the clean air act, when will that legislation come back to the House of Commons for further consideration? When the Prime Minister announces his new plan with respect to emission targets, will the Prime Minister be acting under the auspices of Bill C-30 or under the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think we can clarify right at this moment the point that seems to be troubling the government House leader with respect to Bill C-16.

Clearly I have indicated on behalf of the official opposition that we are prepared to consent to that bill being approved in final form in the House today and put on the list for royal assent this afternoon at 5:30.

My understanding was that the Bloc Québécois made the same offer earlier today. I believe I now see the deputy House leader for the NDP again nodding the same kind of consent.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would ask the House if there is unanimous consent to agree to all of the final steps that are required with respect to Bill C-16 so that this bill can be put on the list for royal assent this afternoon at 5:30.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of Bill C-16, it is obvious that the Liberal House leader is very concerned about having an election and wants to do anything he can to stop it. Having watched the news last night and having seen some numbers, I can understand his sentiments. That is not surprising.

However, I am also not surprised that he could not remember what the bill was about. That is because it has been out of this House for half a year while the Liberal Senate was trying to deal with it. If those members wanted it passed quickly perhaps they could have avoided making amendments to it. However, there are amendments and we have to consult about them. As well, certainly, the information about everyone having consented is very different from the information that has been provided to me by the other parties to this point.

We will continue to pursue that and we hope to move forward on democratic reform. At the same time, as we said earlier, we will invite the other parties to move forward with Bill S-4 in the Senate. If they want to see things move quickly, that would represent good democratic reform. As well, we invite them to indicate their support for Bill C-43.

However, this afternoon we will continue with the list of bills on today's Projected Order of Business.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on the budget implementation bill. When the House returns from the Easter break, it will continue with the budget implementation bill if it is not already completed tomorrow.

Also on the list of bills for that week are: Bill C-33, on income tax; Bill C-40, on the Excise Tax Act; Bill C-10, on mandatory and minimum penalties; the Senate amendment to Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections, if we can get everyone's agreement on that to move quickly; Bill C-27, on dangerous offenders; and Bill C-45, the Fisheries Act, 2007.

Thursday, April 19 shall be the first allotted day in this supply period.

The Liberal House leader continues to make comments about moving quickly today. I wish he had been over there in the Senate talking to his Senate friends for the past six months while we were waiting. Perhaps while he is busying hurrying things up he can go and talk to the senators about Bill S-4.

I have a motion that I would like to make at this time.

There have been consultations, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, the remaining debate on the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Health be deemed to have taken place and all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, April 18, at the end of government orders; and notwithstanding Standing Order 33(2), government orders shall conclude today at 5:30 p.m.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Yes, fixed date elections. There is a royal assent this afternoon. I asked earlier today in the House whether or not the government would make it possible for Bill C-16 to be approved at all remaining stages in the House and put on the list for royal assent this afternoon.

Obviously the Liberal Party is prepared to agree with that. I understand the Bloc has already given consent. It only remains for the government and the NDP to consent. I see the deputy House leader for the NDP nodding his head, so it would appear that the only thing standing in the way at this moment is the government House leader.

I wonder if he could agree to move on Bill C-16, give it the necessary unanimous consent and put it on the list for royal assent this afternoon. Fixed election dates would then be a reality.

Secondly, Bill C-29, the bill dealing with the application of official languages with respect to Air Canada, has not appeared on the business list for the government yet, and I wonder when the government House leader intends to call Bill C-29.

Finally, when will the government table the exact mandate and the exact legal authority given today to some unnamed individual to investigate the trouble in the RCMP? When will we have the tabling of the mandate and the legal authority under which the government is acting?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the business of the House, I wonder if the government House leader would be good enough to inform us of what his plans are for the rest of this week and also for the first week that the House will return after the Easter break, that is, the week beginning April 16.

Specifically, I wonder if he could provide us with information on three particular points.

First, yesterday we received back from the Senate Bill C-16, having to do with--

National Defence Act

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on Bill S-3, which is before us today.

This bill is not very complicated. In December 2004 the House of Commons passed a series of measures requiring sex offenders to be listed in a registry. After this legislation passed and came into force on December 15, 2004, if memory serves, people realized that the military justice system did not have a similar provision.

I think it is important to explain for a few minutes what the difference is between civil justice and military justice. Some people will want to know whether this means that military personnel are treated differently in the military system than we are in the civil system. We have a typical example of this in the bill before us today.

When advances are made in the civil justice system, it is important for them to be incorporated into the military system as well. Some of the people watching us today may well wonder whether military system can be more permissive than the civil system. The answer is no. It is important, though, to have a military justice system and for it to be distinct from the civil system, even though it follows this system and adapts to it. The military environment is very distinctive. It has codes of honour. I have had the opportunity to attend courts martial and can assure the people watching us today that the application of the law in the military system is just as valid as in the civil system.

Everything needed for a valid justice system is there. There is a court, called a court martial. There is a judge, who listens to the case, and there are military defence attorneys and military Crown prosecutors who present the evidence. Then the judge decides. As I said, it is distinctive. It is true that it seems different because we are accustomed to seeing large provincial, federal and even municipal courts, and that is not the case at a court martial. For example, there are regular courts martial at the base in Saint-Jean. The trappings may be a little different, but when it comes to the gist of the matter, justice is done.

This bill just ensures, therefore, that Bill C-16 will apply and the military justice system will reflect the goals and objectives of that legislation.

The current Minister of National Defence, who was formerly the Conservative defence critic, stated something that was a bit different, though, back in 2005. He slightly criticized the forerunner of this bill, that is to say Bill C-16, saying that military personnel found guilty of sex offences should be taken out of the Canadian armed forces because the military is set up so that everyone can be replaced in every operation.

We must not confuse the sentence with the registry. The problem now is that the sentences are carried out. For example, someone from the Canadian Forces who was sentenced for a sexual offence before the implementation of Bill S-3 could receive a sentence, could actually be discharged from the armed forces for a serious offence, but they did not have to enter their name in a registry that already exists for civilians.

The bill before us simply opens up the possibility that, from now on, a convicted member of the military who has received a sentence, whether or not they are discharged from the armed forces, will have to register their name. As several of my colleagues have said, there will be registration offices here and there throughout Canada for people to register and the measures will be pretty strict. I think that is a good thing. In fact, I get the impression that is why Bill S-3 before us is being fast-tracked, that is, that one representative for each political party will speak to the bill and then it will be deemed to have been adopted at all stages. We must not think that the matter is extremely complicated. It is simply an adjustment.

I also said a while ago that military justice is just as valid as civil justice, but it must be recalled that it operates in a very different context.

There are some exceptions in the bill. For example, someone could be sentenced in a sensitive theatre of operations. The example is often given of the special forces, whose numbers are not known and who operate in a theatre in an unknown location. If someone is convicted of a sexual offence in a court martial, obviously the event cannot be given a lot of coverage. The chief of staff can even say that, although there are time limits in the act for registering, he will have to exceed these limits because he is in a specific theatre of operations and national security requires him not to reveal where he is. We must understand that this is an exception. We acknowledge this.

Furthermore in the bill before us there are provisions that ensure that this is not a loophole. Not only will the person convicted of a sexual offence be sentenced, but they will also have to register their name. It was said earlier: these are tools that will help the police forces carry out their investigations. The person must register their name in any case. There are even provisions for revisiting a case every 15 days and determining whether the exemption on grounds of national security is still valid. I think that this is something important in the bill.

People must not get the idea that anyone is trying to get away with something or that someone in the military who is charged with a sexual offence, and convicted, is to be exempt from the law. We do not want people to get the idea someone can get away with something, or avoid their obligations. That is not the purpose of the law, or of this provision. It is not to allow someone to evade the law. In circumstances in which military operations are underway, it is important that there be allowance for taking the theatre of operations into account, and for sentencing the guilty person when it is over. The person will have to serve a sentence, and may even be expelled from the army, but in any event will have to register. The law did not provide for that, and now it does.

We are pleased to support this bill. We believe that this is simply a matter of consistency with Bill C-16. There will no longer be any exceptions in society. Even though we have a military justice system parallel to the civilian justice system, there must still be some logic in how they apply, and previously there was not.

In fact I believe that the Senate realized this. I should say, rather, that the other house realized there was a problem. That is why it decided to send the bill to the House of Commons.

I think they have done a good job. I do not believe that we need an exhaustive study of this matter. We may have made mistakes at certain times, for example on the question of the Veterans Charter. At the time, we thought that an election was coming and that the bill had to be passed at top speed, skipping some stages. We may have made mistakes, because not only was the bill longer, but it also had more impact on veterans as a group.

This bill, however, is not particularly long, and it really does not have many consequences, apart, as I said, from updating the law to be consistent with what was done in Bill C-16.

I do not think that there will be any national outcry if we say today that we go along with Bill C-16, that we will fast-track it through the stages, as we have decided to do and as the House leaders have also decided to do.

In conclusion, I would like to reassure the public. The military justice system will now be as effective and as stringent, in dealing with sexual offenders, as the civilian justice system is. Those people will not be able to avoid their obligations. They will have to be registered in the database like everyone else.

I therefore believe that there will be unanimous agreement in this House, at least from the Bloc Québécois. I have heard my colleagues say that they support the bill. The Bloc Québécois also supports Bill S-3.

Business of the House

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we would be pleased to support the Leader of the Opposition's proposal with respect to Bill C-16.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we get to petitions, I wonder if I might ask the Chief Government Whip about the government's plans with respect to Bill C-16.

It arrived back from the Senate last evening, I believe, with one technical amendment. Since there is already a royal assent scheduled for later today, I wonder if the government would consider moving Bill C-16 through to its final conclusion in the House quickly, before the time of the royal assent, so that Bill C-16 could be included on the list for royal assent today. It is my understanding that the amendment is a very technical one that probably can be agreed to very quickly. I just wonder if the government has that issue under advisement.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the opposition House leader takes a very broad view of the definition of technical. However, we hope that Bill C-16 will progress and will be approved in a form that is appropriate and reasonable to approve and that we will have it here to deal with in the House quickly. That has not happened yet, however, and therefore today we are going to continue with the Liberal opposition motion and the business of supply.

Tomorrow we will continue debate on second reading of Bill C-35, which is the bail reform bill. This is one that has been the subject of positive words from the opposition, and we hope that we will be able to move to unanimous approval.

That would allow us to get on with other issues such as Bill C-42, the Quarantine Act; Bill S-2, hazardous materials; Bill S-3, which deals with defence and justice matters; and Bill C-33, which is an Income Tax Act item.

On Monday, we will be having day three of the budget debate. On Tuesday, we will have the final day of the budget debate.

On Wednesday and Thursday we will continue with the unfinished business from this Friday, including hopefully, the addition of Bill C-10 dealing with mandatory minimum penalties, which I know the opposition House leader will want to add to his package of justice bills he wishes to enthusiastically support.

On Friday, March 30 we will begin debate on the budget implementation bill.

I would like to designate, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), Wednesday, March 28 for the continuation of the debate on the motion to concur in the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and Thursday, March 29 for the continuation of the debate on the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Health.

There is one further item that the opposition House leader raised which was the question of the labour bill. I believe he heard a very generous offer from the Minister of Labour today. I believe the ball is now in the opposition's court on this.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader would be kind enough to indicate to us his business plan to carry through for the next week right up until the Easter break.

Specifically in that report, I wonder if he could indicate his plan with respect to what was Bill C-55 and is now Bill C-47. Opposition House leaders have been asking about this bill for some time now. We have been asking for a report from the Minister of Labour as to exactly what is wrong with Bill C-47 and how the Minister of Labour proposes to correct it. The minister made some favourable comments in question period a few moments ago, so I wonder if the House leader could indicate if we will see that bill in the properly revised form within the course of the next 10 days.

Second, I wonder if the minister could tell us about Bill C-16, the bill dealing with the timing of election dates. I understand that is subject to a technical amendment in the other place today. I wonder if the government House leader would give us the assurance that the unelected Conservative senators in the other place will not delay that bill. Perhaps we could deal with it tomorrow or at the beginning of next week.

Electoral Reform

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Motion M-262 put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. I thank her for having proposed this motion.

First off, let me say that the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting this motion proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Island North because it duplicates the work done by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Considerable work has been done, and the committee has expended a great deal of time and energy as well as taxpayers money to produce its 43rd report, pursuant to the order of reference of November 25, 2004, that, further to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommend a process that engages citizens and parliamentarians in an examination of our electoral system with a review of all options.

In March 2005, members of the committee divided into two groups and travelled to several countries in order examine at first hand the experience of electoral reform and to see how those countries had consulted and engaged citizens in the reform process. Seven members travelled to Scotland, England, and Berlin, while six other members travelled to New Zealand, and Australia. During these trips, the members had the opportunity to meet with a wide variety of politicians, academics, representatives of political parties and electoral commissions, and persons involved with electoral reform, and to study at close hand the systems and reform processes used, if any.

The committee approached this study resulting in the 43rd report by hearing from a number of witnesses. These included representatives of the Law Commission of Canada; representatives from various groups involved with public policy; academics who have studied issues relating to electoral reform and public consultations; and representatives of various provincial initiatives involving reviews of electoral systems. All of these individuals and groups have been extremely helpful in providing members of the committee with valuable insight on how to approach the issue of electoral reform, the ways in which to review the existing electoral system, and how best to consult with and engage citizens.

Moreover, a call for tenders for public consultations on Canada's democratic institutions and practices went out on January 9 in response to the April 4, 2006, Speech from the Throne, which stated that:

Building on the work begun in the last Parliament, this Government will seek to involve parliamentarians and citizens in examining the challenges facing Canada's electoral system and democratic institutions.

The consultations will address various issues, including political parties, the electoral system, the House of Commons, the Senate, and the role of citizens. These consultations are to begin March 9, 2007, and an interim report is to be tabled by May 23.

The motion tabled by the member for Vancouver Island North proposes a number of elements already included in Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, and in Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act. Let us take a look at some of these elements.

Bill C-16 would relieve the Prime Minister of the prerogative to call a general election at the most auspicious time for the political party in power.

This bill has other positive spin-offs. It supports the work of Parliament by enabling elected representatives to better plan their work and by preventing elections from interfering with the adoption of the estimates. It also promotes voter participation. Contrary to what the Conservative government would have us believe, democratic reform as set out in Bill C-16 will not lead to an upheaval because it will not bring major changes to the status quo.

In a minority government, the opposition will still be able to overthrow the government and trigger an election at any time because this bill does not challenge the fundamental principle that a majority of parliamentarians can decide to trigger an election if they feel it is necessary.

A fixed election date system only works if the government in power agrees to it. Since the Prime Minister retains the right to recommend that Parliament be dissolved at any time before the fixed date, he can call an election whenever he chooses, with a good reason to do so.

The other element in motion M-262 relates to Bill C-31, which seeks to reduce the opportunity for fraud or error, improve the accuracy of the national register of electors, facilitate voting and enhance communication between election officials, candidates, parties and voters.

Bill C-31 was the product of close cooperation among the political parties. The government listened to the opposition parties when it introduced Bill C-31. The Conservative government should take the same approach to other issues, instead of stubbornly pushing its law and order agenda, and it should listen to the Bloc Québécois, which is calling for rehabilitation rather than repression. Moreover, instead of insisting on dismantling the gun registry, the minority Conservative government should listen to the Bloc Québécois, which is calling for better control over the registry costs.

As I have already said, the purpose of this bill was to improve the integrity of the electoral process by reducing the opportunity for fraud or error. As a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I participated in the work leading up to the introduction of this bill in the House of Commons, so I can say that a lot of work went into it.

The committee includes representatives of each political party, all of whom cooperated effectively, thus enabling us to achieve our goal of improving the electoral process and strengthening the public's faith in it.

The bill also proposes another change that the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for: assigning each voter a unique identification number. This unique identifier will appear on the voters' lists, eliminating duplication and making for better lists. It is important to point out that this unique identifier will be randomly generated and assigned by the chief electoral officer.

In our opinion, other concerns are more pressing that motion M-262, such as the fiscal imbalance, which the Bloc Québécois, on behalf of all Quebeckers, is calling on the government to correct by transferring $3.9 billion to Quebec.

There is also the crisis in the manufacturing sector. The Conservative government's economic laissez faire approach is no response to the challenges manufacturers face to modernize, innovate and equip themselves better in order to compete with foreign companies.

These are just a few of the issues that we think are more urgent than creating a special committee to continue the work of electoral reform, because, as I said a few minutes ago, that work has already been done, and at a considerable cost.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the gist of my presentation today will be to point out that in view of the very aggressive set of initiatives already introduced by the government on the subject of electoral democratic reform, both in this chamber and for application to the upper House, the motion by the hon. member for Vancouver Island North is effectively redundant.

I want to start my comments by pointing out that the government in its throne speech indicated that it was going to focus intensively on the challenges faced by Canada's electoral and democratic systems. This was done in part in response to the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the last Parliament.

Seeing as the New Democrats are talking about the report of this committee as if it is holy writ or, indeed, brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses, I note that in fact it was not; it was brought down by a group of us, including me.

Let me just read for members what the report said, because it does not say quite what the New Democrats represent it as saying. It states that a “citizens' consultation group”, along with the parliamentary committee, should:

--make recommendations on the values and principles Canadians would like to see in their democratic and electoral systems...[this] would take into account an examination of the role of Members of Parliament and political parties; citizen engagement and rates of voter participation, including youth and aboriginal communities; civic literacy; how to foster a more representative House of Commons, including, but not limited to, increased representation of women and minorities, and questions of proportionality, community of interest and representation;....

Some of this is being taken care of through the citizens' consultation process that is currently under way, as the government has announced, and which has a much broader mandate than what the hon. member is proposing in her motion, but it is a mandate that reflects accurately what was proposed by this committee when it made its report in June 2005.

Indeed, we have made sure that the consultation group reflects what the committee wanted. At the time when I sat on that committee, I was not a fan of that process, but Ed Broadbent, who is constantly cited in the NDP's arguments, spoke in favour of that particular type of process. I said that we would have the usual suspects showing up at this process, and he said, “Sure, it will be the usual suspects, but they have a lot to say, and it is a good process”. The committee voted for it and the government is following through on the recommendations of the committee.

Now the New Democrats have discovered that they really favour another proposal, the citizens' assembly proposal, which Mr. Broadbent fought against vigorously when it was brought up by the Conservatives and which is why the Conservatives put a dissenting report advocating that proposal into the 43rd report of the procedure and House affairs committee. Thus, when the NDP members refer back to this through a revisionist version of history, we must recall that it is a little bit different from the way it actually worked when it happened.

I now want to list some of the legislative initiatives that the government has moved forward with on the subject of democratic reform, because this is really an extraordinary push forward. We are doing more on this issue than any previous government has ever done.

I will start by pointing to the Federal Accountability Act, which changed the rules for financing. It made them much more restrictive, eliminating corporate and union donations and reducing individual donations to $1,000 per capita, ensuring, in other words, that money and affluence are not the determining factors in financing political parties, and therefore ensuring that parties can operate on a level playing field.

We have moved forward on a number of items that deal with making the electoral system fairer, such as Bill C-31 to get rid of electoral fraud, a bill that the NDP opposes although all other parties in the House support it. It is a bill that will do a great deal to make the system much fairer and will ensure that no Canadian is disenfranchised, because electoral fraud disenfranchises everyone who is affected by a vote outcome that can be determined fraudulently, and that is a real problem.

The increased electoral fairness through Bill C-16, which is now in the Senate, having been passed by the House, will ensure that elections occur once every four years, not when the Prime Minister chooses to call them based upon whether his or her party is high in the polls. That was a terrible wrong. It was abused by the previous government repeatedly. This initiative will ensure that it is not abused again. This follows, of course, a series of legislative initiatives adopted at the provincial level, first in British Columbia and then in Ontario, to ensure that provincial elections are also on fixed four year dates.

We have also moved forward on Senate reform. Bill S-4 limits the tenure of senators to eight years. We are having a tremendous problem getting that bill through the Liberal controlled Senate. The government has initiated this bill. It makes sense. It is going to ensure that senators are not effectively appointed for life. Frankly, this is the first time we have seen any serious attempt at Senate reform in the history of this country.

Bill C-43, An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate, would allow for elections of senators. They are called consultative elections because we have to respect the constitutional prerogative of the Governor General to appoint senators.

That bill is interesting not only because it would allow for democracy to finally reach into the Senate and elections to occur within the Senate, but elections under this legislation would not be by means of the first past the post system. Rather elections would be by a single transferable vote system, in short, a proportional system that attempts to ensure that broader preferences come forward and are represented in choosing a senator. It would have the same effect in the Senate as what occurs in the Australian senate, for example, which uses a similar system where a broader range of preferences is expressed. This is a tremendous step forward.

I find it interesting that when talking about proportional representation the New Democrats always take great pains to avoid talking about the one piece of electoral reform legislation that is actually before the House right now, the attempt to introduce proportional representation in the upper house of Canada. In listening to the New Democrats talk about this, one would think there is nothing going on there at all and that it is not worth discussing.

Focusing on something that can happen right now in this Parliament is very important. The issue came up when the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London introduced a motion in the procedure and House affairs committee last week asking that the committee consider a variety of democratic and electoral reform issues, including the issue of proportional representation in the upper house. The New Democrats on the committee voted against it. They ensured that the motion would be defeated.

I do not detect a pattern of behaviour that is logical and actually beneficial toward moving forward on the democratic reform file. The New Democrats are trying to focus on a single hobby horse in a way that suits their interests best.

I find it interesting that Ed Broadbent advocated the idea of electoral reform. During the election campaign when the New Democrats released their election platform, that party moved from favouring more proportional representation as a general theme and letting Canadians look for the best solution, to directly choosing the solution that would be given to Canadians, the multi-member proportional system.

That system has some merits. That system is used in Germany and New Zealand, both of which are respectable democracies, but it not the only available proportional system. For example, it is not the system used in Australia's upper house, which is proportional. It is not used in Malta or Ireland. All of those countries have a single transferable vote system. It is also not the system used in Australia's lower house which uses the alternative vote system. It is not the only proportional system, but it was the only one that the NDP wanted to advocate.

The New Democrats were actually advocating it. They were saying it was essential to move from our system to that system when the MMP system, the multi-member proportional system, had just been defeated in P.E.I., where it received less than 40% of the vote, and an alternative system, the single transferable vote proportional system, had been adopted by almost 60% of British Columbians in another referendum.

We have to be careful. When we look at what the New Democrats are proposing we have to ask ourselves, do they favour proportional representation? Do they favour changing the electoral system in a way that reflects what Canadians want, which means maybe not choosing that system up front, or do they favour the system that is likely to produce the best result in terms of numbers of seats for New Democrats if their vote total does not change? In other words, the NDP is saying, “Without actually changing our appeal to the Canadian people, how can we get more seats in the House of Commons?”

That is not a beneficial approach. We have to work on allowing Canadians to make these decisions themselves.

Canada Elections Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

It is only 66 words long, Mr. Speaker, that is all, but the Liberal-dominated Senate continues to delay and obstruct something that their own leader claims to support. Despite the fact that the leader of the Liberal Party, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, advocates fixed terms for senators, his Liberal colleagues in the other place just will not listen to him. He just cannot get it done.

I hope this bill will not meet the same fate, because it of course also enjoys the support of the opposition here in the House of Commons. I hope opposition members will be able to persuade their Senate colleagues to support it as well.

Before I turn to the benefits of this bill, I do want to express my thanks and gratitude to the member for Niagara Falls, the Minister of Justice. It is because of his work as the former government House leader and minister for democratic reform that we now are in a position to advance this very important bill.

On January 4, the Prime Minister reaffirmed our government's commitment to make our country's institutions more democratic and more accountable. Bill C-31 is just one of the government's very robust democratic reform agenda items. It is an agenda based on bringing accountability and integrity to the institutions and processes of government.

We have successfully passed the federal Accountability Act. Oddly, it was another bill that was held up for almost a year in the process, but we finally got it through. That bill brought about important changes to political financing to eliminate big money from our electoral system.

As I indicated, we have passed Bill C-16 on fixed election dates through the House of Commons. Never again will the government of the day be able to play around with the date of an election for its own crass political motives.

We also have introduced Bill S-4 to limit senator's terms to eight years. It is a concept endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition. We would like to see it become law. We would even like to debate it in this House. That has not happened yet, but we would like it to come out of the Senate so we can consider it.

I fully encourage the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and use the full force of his leadership. I know how strong that full force of leadership has been. As is evident from indications in the past few weeks, it is not that strong, but I would encourage him to muster all the strength he has to get it through and out of the Senate and to tell his colleagues to follow his lead. We would be happy to deal with it.

We of course have also introduced Bill C-43, which is a bill to consult Canadians on who they would like to see representing them in the Senate. Right now, of course, terms can be as long as 45 years, and those people can be appointed by the Prime Minister without any consultation. They have been in the past, which is perhaps why we have a Liberal-dominated Senate that will not allow the will of the House of Commons and Canadians to prevail.

We would like to have an opportunity to ask Canadians who they would like representing them in the Senate. That is another one of our objectives. That of course would reform our system and Parliament in a more democratic and more accountable way. Everyone knows that our parliamentary institutions are the foundation of our democracy and, as such, they must be democratic. We have a responsibility to ensure they continue to operate well for the benefit of Canadians.

With this in mind, as the current Minister for Democratic Reform I feel privileged to rise to speak on this bill today.

Bill C-31 makes a number of operational improvements to the electoral process and the Canada Elections Act. It is aimed at improving the integrity of our elections. It implements almost all of the recommendations of the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, a report which was agreed to unanimously by committee members from all parties. The same committee reported the bill with some amendments to fine-tune it on December 13.

In short, Bill C-31 is about simple solutions that will yield tangible improvements to the integrity of our electoral system.

Most of these amendments to the Elections Act were originally recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer, who has had on the ground experience in administering elections. All of these legislative changes were endorsed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, comprised of members of Parliament with real on the ground experience as candidates. A number of the changes may seem small, but collectively they will lead to real results that will improve the integrity of our system.

First, I want to speak about improvements to the national register and list of electors. We have proposed, for instance, amendments that will improve the accuracy of the national register of electors and, by implication, the lists of electors used by each of us during electoral campaigns.

As most will recall, the national register replaced the door-to-door enumeration that used to occur up to 1997. It is from this register that permanent voters' lists, as some of us call it, are generated.

We all know the importance of these lists for engaging our constituents in a campaign and for encouraging them to vote. We have all experienced the challenges that have been faced by Elections Canada in maintaining a database of such a large size in a country growing so rapidly where mobility is so high.

Over the years, Elections Canada has taken strides to improve the quality of the register, but the Chief Electoral Officer has requested more tools to allow for greater improvements and efficiencies. Bill C-31 gives him those tools. For example, we have all seen the box on the front page of the income tax return that allows Canadians to consent to have their name, address and date of birth shared with Elections Canada for inclusion in the register.

Unfortunately, the Chief Electoral Officer has found that a lot of non-citizens who are not entitled to vote are checking the box and making the information less reliable.

Bill C-31 provides the authority to change the question on the income tax form and make it clear that it only applies to Canadian citizens and only they should check it off. This will improve the reliability of the information received, enhance the accuracy of the register and, in turn, improve the quality of the voters' lists. It is a simple change. It will produce real results by ensuring that only eligible voters will have their names placed on the voters' list.

Similarly, Bill C-31 allows income tax returns to be used to inform Elections Canada of deceased electors, so those names can be removed from the register more quickly.

In addition, the bill updates statutory authorities to allow returning officers to update the register and the list of electors, to clarify the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to exchange information with provincial electoral authorities, and to permit the Chief Electoral Officer to use stable identifiers that will make cross-referencing of information on electors more efficient.

Each of these reforms will contribute to a better, more up-to-date national register and in so doing improve the integrity of the lists.

Another element of this bill would improve the ability to communicate with the electorate, which is of course a fundamental cornerstone of our democratic system. These reforms are designed to allow candidates, parties, election officials and the electorate all to engage in a dialogue. That is what makes democracy work.

Election officials, particularly returning officers, will have access to apartment buildings and gated residential communities to carry out their functions.

It will therefore be easier for them to conduct a targeted revision of the list of electors by going to electors in areas of high mobility and low registration.

It will also be easier for candidates to meet electors because they will have better access to gated communities and areas open to the public, such as malls, to campaign.

Taken together, these reforms will help the electorate become better informed and enable voters to become more familiar with local representatives and the political process.

A third set of reforms in this bill would improve the accessibility of voting by those who are entitled to vote. For instance, many Canadians are using advance polls to cast their votes rather than waiting until polling day. That is critically important if we are to see the turnout increase or at lease reverse the decline in turnout that has been happening until recently.

Bill C-31 will allow greater flexibility to establish more advance polls when circumstances warrant. This is of particular benefit for large ridings and remote areas, where advance polling districts can be very large and hard to access for some residents. This bill will go a long way to improve access for voters and will lead to increased voter turnout across this country.

One of the things that has saddened many of us who care a great deal about democracy is that at the same time as we have seen a decline in community involvement in all kinds of activities, we have seen that decline in the voter rate. That decline in voter participation is a bad thing for our democracy. We want to see Canadians engaged in their process. We think it is important that voter turnout increase.

All of us in the House of Commons have to explore ways in which we can work to improve voter turnout. If allowing more advance polls is one way to do it, as Bill C-31 opens the door to doing, that is something that we should be doing.

I encourage all members of this House to take that step in the right direction to reversing the decline in voter turnout and encouraging more Canadians to vote, encouraging more Canadians to have a real stake in our electoral system and to participate in that way.

On another subject, one of the most significant sets of changes in this bill addresses potential voter fraud. Like all the reforms that I have discussed, these amendments protect the integrity of the electoral process. The fundamental democratic principle of our electoral process is that only those entitled to vote should vote and they must vote only once.

During meetings of the House Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, it was clear that most of the members had heard of times when this principle was violated. Every time that happens, voter confidence in the electoral system and its integrity is shaken and an eligible voter is deprived of the right to vote.

Bill C-31 takes action to reduce the opportunity for voting fraud through a very simple step. It amends the Elections Act requiring Canadians to show identification for voting. Rather than only stating one's name and address, which is all someone has to do right now, a voter will have to provide some kind of proof of their identity and residence before receiving a ballot.

I cannot say how many times voters have come to me and said they could not believe that they were not asked for any identification and that anybody could have voted in their place. I think most of us have probably heard stories of folks who have gone to vote and found out that somebody had already voted claiming to be them. We all hear those stories and they are alarming. This change will put an end to that.

The change applies to people who are already registered to vote and are on the list of electors. I should stress that under the current system those who are not registered to vote must already show identification to register at the polls. We are simply making that requirement a uniform requirement. Simply put, the bill requires individuals to prove who they are and that they are who they say they are before they vote.

The federal voter identification process will be modelled on similar procedures in Canada and in other countries, such as those in Quebec and a growing number of municipalities across the country. It will improve the integrity of the process and reduce opportunities for electoral fraud, which can have an impact on very close election results.

In turn, this reform will, like the other measures I have discussed, enhance the integrity of our system and the confidence of the people in that system. This is what this bill is all about, the integrity of our electoral process, which is something in which we all have a stake.

In closing, as Minister for Democratic Reform, I am excited about this bill because it provides tangible and real results for Canadians. Without a well functioning electoral machinery our democracy will not work. All hon. members will agree that the machinery must be regularly maintained, updated, renewed and modernized, and it is our duty as parliamentarians to do that work.

The progress of Bill C-31 is an ideal example of how that work should be done. The genesis of the bill was a parliamentary committee report that was agreed to by all the members of that committee, including the representatives of the New Democratic Party. The government responded with legislative action. We have worked with the other parties in fine tuning the bill after hearing from a number of witnesses in committee. It is truly a multi-partisan or non-partisan effort designed to improve the integrity from which all of us will benefit.

If our electoral system is held in a higher regard, all of us will be held in a higher regard and to the extent that confidence is lacking, all of us suffer as parliamentarians. That is why I think the spirit in which this has gone forward is a positive one and what this bill does is positive.

I hope that the House will pass this bill quickly so that it can come into force as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to join me in supporting Bill C-31.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

moved that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of Bill C-31. I strongly encourage all hon. members to join me in passing this bill by the House in order that it may come into effect as soon as possible after it is passed by the Senate.

I would hope that senators would not unduly delay passage of this bill, unlike two other bills, Bill S-4 to limit Senate terms, and Bill C-16 to establish fixed dates for elections, both of which have already passed in this House.

I would note that it has now been 258 days since the bill to limit Senate terms to eight years was introduced, 258 days that it has gone without a second reading vote. Every single day it comes up in the Senate, the Liberal-dominated Senate obstructs it by delaying it and voting for adjournment.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes, and we require people, legally speaking, to fill out the census. I would like you to turn your attention to it--and you already have--because I personally believe that in terms of this bill, the first thing we need to do is make sure we tighten up the enumeration. I know you have been working on that in your directorate, but we need to provide resources. We have two bills in front of us that will touch you. They are Bill C-2, in terms of people being appointed based on merit, and Bill C-16, on fixed-date elections. That will hopefully give you more structure to get to that ultimate goal of universal enumeration.

There is also technology and ways of doing that. I believe everyone should have to be enumerated. We shouldn't assume anything, even if they live in a suburban middle-class neighbourhood, in terms of universality of the most fundamental aspect of our democracy, the right to vote and the access to the vote. Every citizen should be treated the same; we should have a universal enumeration, and it should be done, while certainly acknowledging that we have different ways of doing it--the census component or their experience.

On technology, I know people who work in this town. We are ahead of any country, any jurisdiction, in terms of using technology and secure e-mails and that kind of thing. There are ways to do it for people in areas where you know there is not a lot of movement; you establish who they are and where they are.

I will just lead to the point where you mentioned the census data. That's important.

You said “perceived instances of fraud”. Do we have voter fraud in our country right now, as far as you know, in federal elections?

[Rob Hepburn]

It'sBill C-16. Okay.

Fixed election dates might help in terms of giving people a heads-up that there is an election coming. But in the minority situation we're in now, of course, it would not do much good, because I imagine the bill addresses the fact that the government has to retain the confidence of the House. It helps in terms of giving people forewarning.

But at the same time, in terms of getting youth, the homeless, and other groups that don't traditionally vote in high numbers out to vote, any impediment is a great barrier. The requirement for a piece of photo ID, with a current address on it, whether or not there's a notice of two years or six months, is still an impediment. When the goal is to engage these people and get them out to vote, I think it carries quite a significant weight.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It's Bill C-16.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay.

Colleagues, thank you very much. I think we've had an extremely productive conversation this morning, and I appreciate the consensus we're hearing around the table. It demonstrates significant cooperation and a need to do better.

What I'm understanding, just for the record, is that this will be discussed amongst the individual caucuses in some matter of seriousness, and that at some point in the future we'll put it on the agenda. My guess is that it might be February, but let's see how things go. If it's not going to take too much time, we could have a brief discussion about the results of those discussions at caucus here at the meeting, and then decide how further to deal with it, if at all.

Is there any confusion on that? Are there any questions? Okay, perfect. Jamie, we'll mark that down for some future date. We're good to go.

Ladies and gentlemen, what I want to remind members is that we do have before us now Bill C-31, which is, of course, as a direct result of our report from this committee. That will be coming before this committee on Thursday. Regrettably, we're putting the conflict of interest code on the back burner, so to speak, for a little while, as legislation takes precedence.

Members, I just want to remind you that, at the very most, we have seven meetings left before the Christmas adjournment. Before you, you should have a blank calendar. I would certainly like to have a discussion now about what witnesses we need. We have some already. We need to schedule the witnesses, and if necessary—hopefully it's not necessary—I would like to have a brief discussion about the possibility of extra meetings so that in fact we can get our work done prior to the Christmas break.

What we know so far, colleagues, is that on Thursday, Mr. Nicholson will be appearing before the committee--that's confirmed--to begin the discussions. He has been invited. He has agreed, of course, to come.

There are some other witnesses here, I can tell you, who have requested to appear, but also, before I forget, I want to make sure that we agree, as a group, on notice for any amendments. We did agree prior, when we were studying Bill C-16, to 24 hours’ notice for any amendments. First of all, can we get that out of the way? Is that acceptable to members, that there be 24 hours’ notice for any amendments?

I'm seeing nods around the table. Okay, then we can just record that that will be the rule with respect to that. The witnesses who we feel that at this point we need to hear from, and as well have asked, are the B.C. Civil Liberties Association; and Duff Conacher, who is the coordinator of Democracy Watch. We have an individual request that I'm not 100% sure of, from an individual named Tina-Marie Bradford, from British Columbia. She's a lawyer. She has requested to come before the committee.

As well, we had requests from our friends in the Bloc to have folks from Quebec in to discuss the issue of bingo cards. My thinking is that Quebec might be able to offer some insight as well on how they have managed the issue of folks who are homeless, how they've dealt with it.

And then, of course, Mr. Kingsley will be appearing--Mr. Shapiro may want to appear, but I don't see the relevance.

May I just suggest as chair, to lead things along, that we have Mr. Nicholson coming in on Thursday. So next Tuesday, might I suggest that we invite our colleagues from Quebec and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association via teleconferencing? Obviously, I will leave it to the committee to agree to that. I have no position on Mr. Conacher or the individual from British Columbia, the lawyer, so I would leave that to members, if they choose, but my thinking is that we get them all in here on Tuesday, November 28.

Thursday, November 30, is adjourned out of respect for the Liberal leadership campaign. We could reschedule that to a Wednesday night, but let's see how many witnesses we come up with.

I suggest that Tuesday, December 5, which would be the next meeting, we have Mr. Kingsley in for at least the first half of that meeting to answer any concerns we come up with as a result of the witnesses.

I remind colleagues that we've had many witnesses on the report that we tabled. Much of this is going to be repetitive, but in all due process and with respect to colleagues here who may have questions, I will now open the floor for comments on who the witnesses should be.

Monsieur Godin.

Federal Accountability Act

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my comments by following up on the point the member for Cambridge was enunciating on cleaning up politics. It is a pleasure to again speak to a bill that we worked hard on and to which I have personally contributed on the committee.

I will begin with the title of cleaning up politics because that is the title of the document put forward by my predecessor, Ed Broadbent, before the last election. The document is entitled “Cleaning up Politics: Demanding Changes in Ethics and Accountability”. The seven point plan that Mr. Broadbent put forward is pretty straightforward but still a little elusive, notwithstanding some of the important things that have been brought forward.

The first point was to have democratic accountability for MPs. What he was referring to was that no MP should ignore the wishes or intents of his or her voters for personal gain. What he was talking about is that MPs should not be able to cross the floor simply so they can be vaulted into cabinet. It is important to note that he was not talking about the present government. He was talking about the previous government. That is something we were not able to attain in this bill but we will continue to fight for that because the basic premise of democracy is not to have MPs cross the floor at their will and for their personal gain. It must stop. The government in Manitoba is putting forward a bill that will do that and the Government of Canada should do the same.

The second point on his list was fixed election dates. I am glad to say that Bill C-16 is on its way. Hopefully it will pass through the Senate a little easier than Bill C-2 will, for the sake of all of us.

The third point was to have transparent leadership contests. A certain member of the Liberal Party, who went on to become the leader of the Liberal Party and the prime minister, was able to raise $12 million for his leadership campaign. Some would say that the $12 million were not necessary because, as we all know, it was not much of a contest. However, before the government gets too high on its horse, the present Prime Minister spent $2.7 million for his leadership contest. It seems like a bargain by comparison but, nonetheless, we need to have less money injected into the body politic and take the money out of politics. We saw what kind of effect that can have on the body politic in the most recent American elections.

The fourth point was real electoral reform. We will continue to fight for this. We do not believe that what we have seen with the unelected Senate is anything that anyone can be proud of and it is certainly showing that our democratic institutions need an overhaul. One of the things we have put forward, following along many reports going back to the Pépin-Robarts report and others, is the need to change our democratic institution so it is reflective of the will of the people. We can look at perhaps a first past the post system with proportionality, such as they have in New Zealand, Scotland and, in fact, in most of the rest of the world save two other jurisdictions.

The fifth point was to end unregulated lobbying. I am pleased to say that there are changes in Bill C-2 about lobbying. I am sad to say that there are some amendments being put forward by the Senate to change that. What seems to be elusive is what my colleague, Mr. Broadbent, put forward, which is that we deal with firms that act as both lobbyists and government consultants. This is a conflict of interest as they are playing both sides of the street. We saw that with the previous government and we do not want to see that happen in the future. If a firm is working for government one day, the firm should not be able to turn around and lobby the next day. It creates a perception of influence peddling, and we have seen examples of that before.

What we need to still deal with is the fact that lobby firms, public relations firms, must have clear rules in front of them for the sake of our democratic institutions and we need to ensure it is understood that government is here to serve the people and not the friends of any particular party. Sadly, Bill C-2 does not end that type of lobbying and we need to continue to work on that. We provided amendments but they were ruled out of order.

The sixth point on Mr. Broadbent's list was ethical appointments. Just recently a panel of experts looked at reforming the National Capital Commission here in Ottawa. It should be noted that the National Capital Commission, which goes back to 1959, was always an appointed body based on who one knew and on political patronage. We hope that will change but it should not be based on a whim. It should be based on a structure so that appointments can function properly.

We proposed, and the bill does have amendments, to have a public appointments commission. Those amendments were taken from Mr. Broadbent's work on ethical appointments. We believe we should toss out the whole idea of patronage when it comes to appointments. With a possible 4,000 appointments, we believe it is dangerous to allow them to be motivated by politics. In fact, they should be motivated by merit to serve Canadian people and not to serve any political party which, sadly, was the case, not just with the previous government but back all the way to Macdonald. Canadian history is littered with problems in and around political appointments.

The commission that my colleague from Winnipeg worked on and was derived from Mr. Broadbent's idea makes sense. As was mentioned earlier, the government had concerns about the person it tried to appoint to fulfill this job. The problem was not necessarily with Mr. Morgan's abilities to do the job but with the way in which it was being done. We had in front of us a bill that would change the appointments process and the government tried to cut off the process and appoint its own person but then cried foul when it was not accepted.

The point was that we had a bill before the House which talked about a public appointments commission but the government decided it knew better and wanted to appoint its person who, quite rightly, was rejected. It was not because of the person himself or his merit. It was because the government put forward someone ahead of a bill that was in front of Parliament to create a public appointments commission. On another day I could give my opinion on that person for that job, but I will leave that.

We need to have a public appointments process and that brings in ethical appointments. It is too important for Canadians and for the body politics.

The final point Mr. Broadbent put forward was to reform the access to information and, my gosh, do we need work there. We have problems presently with the government. I recently had an access to information on something that was not controversial and I received three lines and 18 pages blanked out. I wondered if something as controversial as a museum was actually of note to the security of the country and puts us all in jeopardy. Apparently it does and one of the problems is that the Access to Information Act is too limited, too controlling and does not serve Canadians well. We clearly need to change that.

We need to ensure light is shed on government and that we have a window on the decision making of government, not simply to allow people who want to be critical of the government, while that is important, but to allow anyone who wants to understand how government works and the motivations behind policy and, quite frankly, being able to form policy, are allowed to have their voices heard by way of knowing what the decisions were of the government. There are changes in Bill C-2 but we need a heck of a lot more.

I want to talk about some of the things that we were able to provide and propose as a party. We did not oppose the idea of Bill C-2. In fact, in principle we supported it in committee and where we thought changes were needed we proposed alternatives. I already mentioned our proposal for the public appointments commission which was accepted as amended and put into the bill. One of the things I put forward was to ensure that all contracts of $10,000 or more be on the public record. We had to fight to get that in but it is in Bill C-2.

One concern Canadians had with the previous government in the sponsorship case was contracts without a paper trail. Often we did not know who was providing the service or what that service was. One of the amendments the NDP put forward in the area of procurement was to ensure that all contracts of $10,000 or more would now be on the public record. I would have preferred that it had been a lesser amount, but that is what we agreed to on compromise. Now any Canadian can find out who is providing a service to the government and who is getting the contracts. They will know if they are getting value for their money.

The NDP believes fundamentally in lowering the donation that people can make to $1,000. Sadly, in the amendments before us, the Senate has deemed it in its infinite unelected wisdom to change that to $2,000. I know this was something the Liberal Party preferred. I think most people would agree that $1,000 is fine and reasonable. We would like to see that amendment defeated. No constituent of mine has called me to ask me to ensure the donation limit is increased from $1,000 to $2,000. In fact, I would submit that any member of the House could go out and claim that was a good idea in a town hall meeting or in a householder.

The NDP also believes it is important to strengthen the whistleblowing protection in the act. Before I was elected to this place, I worked with many people in the community around whistleblowing. When Bill C-11 was before the House, it was not sufficient. I was delighted to see it was not proclaimed because it was not good legislation, as some might have suggested. In fact, people who had been negatively affected as whistleblowers were adamant. They said we needed to change those parts of the whistleblower protection act to ensure it reflected their concerns. That has been done and I hope we will not tinker with that.

Conflict of interest rules allowing Canadians to make complaints to the new conflict of interest and ethics commissioner is something we have provided by ensuring that positive propositions were added to Bill C-2.

The protection of first nations' rights within the act is something I personally moved through committee to ensure they were not sideswiped by something that was not about them. First nations were almost folded into the equation when they should not have been.

The NDP amended the bill to ensure we not only changed the appointments process, but in effect changed the whole notion of patronage. If there is one thing, as my colleague from Winnipeg has said, we should ensure that the public appointments process remains in the bill.

The way appointments were done in previous governments was via a telephone and a Rolodex and who was known in the PMO. Those days are gone, fineto, adios. Canadians have been clear that this kind of politics is not only admonished, but it is something that will not be accepted. I challenge anyone in this place to go out and debate the need to bring back patronage appointments in our democratic system and our democratic framework. Thankfully those days are gone.

We need to ensure we have a clear understanding of the bill. It is not about getting a pound of flesh. If it is about that, then I suggest members have missed the point. If the government or any of the opposition parties are trying to exact revenge with this bill, then they are clearly misguided. Canadians are tired of it. We do not need to deepen the cynicism of politics. In fact, what the opposition is trying to do is to ensure there are clear rules so we can build back the trust that has been lost with Canadians.

Recently I saw some appointments that caused me concern. The Conservative government has appointed someone to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada who goes against the consensus within the scientific community on climate change. It has appointed someone who will be responsible for providing a grant to researchers, a person who is out of step with the mainstream scientific body on climate change.

Again, we need to pass the bill to ensure we have merit based appointments so we no longer have people appointed to bodies, which are so important to the public good, who potentially undermine the public good.

If we look at the bill in total, all of us have concerns about it. We have stated those concerns in committee. We proposed alternatives to it so it would be something of which we could be proud. In the end, we wanted to go back to our constituents and say that we did everything we could to ensure we had clear rules that would bring back responsibility to government, that would bring back clear representation to our citizens, the constituents we represent. No longer could we say that the decisions being made in government were being made under a cloud of suspicion over whose interests were being served. Quite frankly, that was the equation.

We need to ensure the following: when people are lobbying the government, they are not doing it because of who they know; when people blow the whistle, they will not have their career ruined because they stood up for the public interest; when someone is appointed to the head of a Crown corporation, it is based strictly on merit alone; and when people decide they will contribute to government, it is based solely on the public good and not on their private interests. Those are the key issues we all have to look at when we look at Bill C-2.

Sadly, the amendments that have come back to this place from the other place do not do that. They are riddled with self-interest. They will undermine the public trust and ultimately, I believe, undermine the whole notion of the necessity for the other place. When we have the other place sending legislation back to this place, legislation that has been gutted of many well thought out sensible ideas for its self interest, it speaks for itself.

I could underline many of those amendments, but two in particular are worth underlining. First is changing the limit one can give from $1,000 to $2,000. This has been put forward by people who are not even elected, which raises all sorts of question marks. Many people in the other place spend much of their time raising money for political parties. Perhaps that is the reason. The other issue we have to examine is changes to lobbying. We need to strengthen our oversight on lobbying, not weaken it.

In the end, we have an unelected body, the other place, sending back to an elected body incredible amendments in terms of the number, but more important, in terms of the scope and what they will do to the bill. That raises the question of the value of the other place when it does such a thing.

When we talk about real accountability and when we see what has recently happened and how the bill has been played with and manipulated by the other place, we have to then suggest this. The next project, after the bill has passed, is to take a look at how we can reform, modify and change the other place to make it a lot more accountable and democratic so it will not meddle in the voice of everyday Canadians who elected us.

Finally, if the bill is destroyed and not passed, every one of us will have to answer as to what we did and why. My belief is Canadians wanted to see us pass a bill with clear rules and clear reform for them. The bill is not about us. It is about Canadians. We need to pass the bill and ensure the values that Canadians entrusted to us to promote are the bottom line, not the interests of people in the other place or anywhere else.

Canada Elections Act

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

I would like to begin my comments by quoting Alfred E. Smith, a very well-known governor of New York, a populist, a reformer in child labour and some other areas, and a solid advocate for the poor and for democracy. Many years ago, he said, “All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy”.

I agree with Mr. Smith. Those words are a prescription and should guide us in our deliberations. If, as some have claimed, there are ills in the system, the only way to cure the system is to open things up and have more democracy. I believe that what Mr. Smith was really referring to was the importance of opening up the process of government and of believing that democracy is not a static concept. In fact, democracy is fluid and evolves, and it can always be improved.

On the fundamental idea of improving the process of voting, or of democracy, let us make no mistake about it: my party and I support the concept and we believe that much more can be done to improve our system. To be clear, we support the principle and the spirit of Bill C-31. In fact, for many years we have called for improvements to the voting system.

But let me also be clear in saying that I have major problems with this bill. I believe it needs not just fine tuning but a major overhaul. To be clear, this bill is not the democratic remedy that will cure the body politic and what ails it right now. In fact, there is an argument to be made that the bill could make it worse.

Let us examine the origins of this bill. I think that is important. The bill started with an examination by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, just after the last election, on how to improve the integrity of the electoral system and the electoral process. In June 2006 the committee report was tabled. The government responded on October 20. The government then proposed this bill that is in front of us.

Just as a side comment on that, there is something that I find interesting. Yesterday the government said there was all party support for the report and there was a sense that we had a consensus on what is in the bill. We have to clarify that this was not the case. I think most people who were on the committee would acknowledge that. This bill and its contents are not what the committee asked for.

In fact, there was a committee report and the government response to the report, and then, I would submit, there was cherry-picking in terms of what was in the report and what is in this bill. Those are the origins of the bill. I will be cautionary here. As I said, we support the spirit and the principle, but we are being cautionary because of the way in which the government has decided to improve the democratic process.

We have concerns about some of the points in the bill. As my colleague from Vancouver East has already mentioned, one of our concerns is about requiring people to have photo ID. This is possible disenfranchisement for some people. Not everyone has photo identification. Those on the government side will say, as others have said, that it is not a problem because they can then have someone vouch for them and they can swear an oath. There are problems with that. As my colleague said, the devil is in the details.

There are many concerns around people's ability to find someone to vouch for them and concerns around having supports for that, be it because of language issues or lack of knowledge on how to have people to advocate for them. There may be unintended effects of this bill that would marginalize and shut out some of our most vulnerable citizens. I know that this is certainly not the intent of anyone in this House, but that unfortunately could be the outcome.

The way the bill is written might also leave it open to a charter challenge, for some of the reasons I have mentioned. Of course this is something that will come out in committee. It is very important to understand this. We saw, as was referred to by another member, that in the United States the electoral laws in the 1950s and 1960s were structured in a way that intended to disenfranchise people. It was part of the clarion call of the civil rights movement to change that in the United States.

I would hate to see unintended consequences that would do the same here. I do not think that is hyperbole. We have seen laws in this country that have done that. I refer to B.C. and its so-called section 80, whereby people were not able to get on the voters list until the actual day of the election simply because of a flawed enumeration system. It is important to acknowledge, with the way the bill is presently written, that a charter challenge could happen.

It is also important to note that there are other ways to deal with the concerns MPs and people in general have with the integrity of the system. It is always important to note that when we have a piece of legislation in front of us we have to look at what the problem is. Here, the problem being put forward to us is that there is possible fraud occurring. How do we change that? The government is proposing a bill that talks about photo ID, vouching, swearing oaths, et cetera. Perhaps there are other ways and I think we have proposed some.

One way to change that, as my colleague said, is a proper enumeration. We have just had two bills passed in Parliament that would affect enumeration and the electoral process. I am referring to the clauses in Bill C-2 about the appointment of district returning officers based on merit. That is a good thing. My party supported it. We supported it before the election and we certainly supported it in Bill C-2.

The bill now before us gives the district returning officer a new purview. The bill talks about who shall be given an oath and who shall be questioned, et cetera. We do not have the other piece in place, sadly, because of what is going on in the Senate. That process needs to happen. The Senate needs to pass the bill.

Before that happens, I note that I have concerns about how these people will be trained and what merit we will be basing our decisions on. How are we going to train them so that the people we have employed are going to know the intricacies of their jobs? In this bill, we are giving them the authority to question people's legitimacy and whether they should be given a ballot or not.

Another concern of mine has to do with fixed date elections. Recently in this House in that regard I supported more resources being put into enumeration. That is what we heard about from witnesses who spoke on Bill C-16. I would like to see more emphasis put on a viable and sound enumeration process. That would be a better way of dealing with the problem, rather than simply asking for more ID, for referrals or for vouching for people when they might not have access to photo ID or to someone who could vouch for them.

I believe the intent of the bill is important. Quite frankly, I believe the bill was rushed in the way it came from committee and has been put before the House. I think the bill needs an overhaul, not just fine tuning. We look forward to making major amendments to the bill when it comes to committee and we look forward to hearing from Canadians on how this will affect them.

My last point is that I began my comments by saying that the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy, and if we are not careful, we will not be following that prescription. In fact, we will be doing the opposite with some of the unintended consequences of this bill.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House once again and support a bill that has been a long time coming, a bill for which I think the Canadian public has generally been asking.

Canada's new government has brought forward this legislation today to set election dates at the federal level in Canada. This would mean that Canadians would know the date of the next federal election. It would be scheduled four years from the previous election date.

With Bill C-16, the Conservative Party is taking action and implementing another one of its promises, another one of the planks of the last general election.

We promised to change the way government does business. We promised to bring accountability to the ways we govern ourselves. We pledged to improve on our democratic system wherever possible. Bill C-16 would do exactly that.

This bill is in the third reading stage, the final stage of debate in the House at this time. All parties have spoken in favour of the bill. It has not been amended since being introduced by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform. He spoke eloquently about the bill at second reading and has told us what it would do. He brought the House up to speed earlier today on the progress and on what this bill would accomplish.

Why does Canada need Bill C-16?

Over the past six years, since I was first elected, I have been a member of the official opposition and I have seen elections, and how they were called or not called, at the convenience of two Liberal prime ministers. We have seen the power to call elections abused in provincial jurisdictions, as well. It is frustrating for elected officials and for voters.

Bill C-16 proposes to improve our democracy by addressing the downside of our parliamentary system that allows the prime minister the exclusive authority to call an election, sometimes a snap election.

What would Bill C-16 do and what are its attributes?

Bill C-16 is modelled on British Columbia and Ontario laws requiring fixed election dates every four years, except when a government loses the confidence of the House, in which case, an election would be held immediately and the subsequent election would follow four years after that. This would improve governance as I believe it would result in higher voter turnout rates and it would assist in attracting qualified candidates to public life because Bill C-16 would bring some predictability and stability to our electoral process.

Voters would get excited and they would gear up for the election date knowing that it was coming at a certain time. New candidates would be able to decide whether or not to throw their hat in the ring because they could decide if they are able to prepare for a certain date in the future.

With this bill, Elections Canada would no longer need to be election ready every year all year long. It would not need to be prepared to go at the whim of a prime minister who decides to call a snap election. Taxpayers would save money because they would not need to pay to keep Elections Canada at the ready all the time.

Fixed election dates would help all political parties. It is not that it would only help the government or just help the opposition. It would help all parties as they would have equal opportunities to make preparation for the upcoming election campaign.

Today we have a situation where the governing party has a remarkable advantage of knowing when the next election will take place. In fact, it may know several months in advance. It may have plans that would be well before the time that we would normally see an election call but it will have looked at the polls and it will be able to make, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, a decision based on what would be to its advantage. This is not fair.

Bill C-16 says that the next election will be on Monday, October 19, 2009. That is the date unless, in this minority Parliament, the opposition would decide that the government has lost the confidence of the House.

I think an October election would be the best possible time here in Canada. The weather in October is optimal for an election. We could prevent having an election over Christmastime like the last election. We would not be abandoning our holidays in the prime of the summer months to engage in campaign activities, to work those long hours pounding the pavement and knocking on doors to find that most people are not at home.

This would give the candidates and the parties the opportunity to ensure the public was informed of the policies and that they knew the people and the parties that were running in their local constituencies. I believe voters would appreciate that.

Bill C-16 would ensure that constitutional requirements are respected. The bill does not in any way change the requirement that the government must maintain the confidence of the House. Monday, October 19 is the date that is most likely to maximize voter turnout and it is least likely to conflict with cultural or religious holidays or with elections in other jurisdictions.

Bill C-16 even offers an alternative election date in the event of a conflict with a date of religious or cultural significance, or an election being held in another province. This would allow a bit of flexibility. Bill C-16 would empower the Chief Electoral Officer to recommend an alternate polling day to the governor in council should he or she find that a polling day was not suitable for that purpose. The alternate day would be either the Tuesday or the Monday following the election date as stipulated in the bill.

How does Bill C-16 work? Under Bill C-16, the prime minister would retain the prerogative to advise dissolution to allow for situations when the government has lost the confidence of the House of Commons. This is a fundamental principle in a democracy. Currently, it is the prerogative of the prime minister, having lost the confidence of the House, to select what he or she regards as an opportune time for an election to renew the government's mandate and to advise the Governor General to dissolve the House in time for that election.

Under the new system proposed in the bill, federal elections would be held on a fixed date. This would not affect the right of the prime minister to advise dissolution at any time prior to the stipulated date. In a case like what we have right now, in a minority government, that would not mean that the House would sit right up until 2009. If the opposition were to decide that it was time, the Governor General would be called and the election would take place. Canadians would have the right to choose.

Let us look again at the key advantages of a fixed election date.

The first advantage would be fairness. I think it is unfair that the governing party should be permitted to time an election to exploit conditions favourable to only its re-election, especially when it is not listening to the people and is not recognizing the people but looking at itself in the polls. It realizes what it wants to bring somewhere down the road as far as policy and it has an advantage over every other party. This bill would bring fairness back to this democratic system.

The other point I would like to make relates to transparency and predictability. Fixed election dates would provide transparency as to when general elections would be held. Rather than decisions about election dates being made behind closed doors just with the cabinet and the prime minister, general election dates would be public knowledge.

On October 19 everyone would have the opportunity to build on that minority government or to work for their local candidate. It would allow more people to get involved in the electoral process. I think this is something that has been frustrating all members of Parliament. They realize that we are seeing a detach, especially among our younger Canadians. When we look at the statistics and voter turnout, we recognize that one of the demographics that is quite often very low in voter turnout is our young, eligible voters.

I really believe that this would give a sense of certainty so that we could engage people, university students, high school students, college students, to get involved in the process.

I look around this House of Commons and see, especially on this Conservative side, many young Canadians, and even our Speaker sitting in the chair. I am not certain how old he was when the good people of his constituency elected him, but with this type of election date, we will see young people come forward knowing the election date, knowing the policies they want brought forward, being able to get in touch with their member of Parliament or even deciding to run themselves. We would applaud having the issues of young Canadians brought forward.

I commend you, Mr. Speaker, in your youth, for the great degree of experience that you have shown and also for the way you represent your constituents.

Transparency and predictability would also mean improved governance. A fixed election date would allow for better policy planning. Knowing that It would be facing an election four years down the road, the government may decide to have long term policies and to build on those policies so that Canadians could have a sense of stability and of knowing exactly in which direction the government is going.

For example, members of Parliament would also be able to work their committee structure. They could set out their own agendas well in advance, which would make the work of committees and Parliament as a whole more efficient.

As the chair of the foreign affairs and international development committee, one of the frustrations that we had was that there were a number of reports where the committee in the past Parliament did an amazing amount of work on different issues and then we had an election call, a snap election, an early election, and those reports were not finished.

We now have a new Parliament. As a new committee, we come back to this place and we see all the work that the previous committee had done, but we have new committee members. They say that they are not ready to sign on to a report until they have heard from the witnesses who were before the former committee and until they have done their due diligence. They want to go back over all this. We see so much duplication. We see this in all committees as we come up to speed on what the past Parliament did and then decide whether or not we want to sign on to this report, engage in another study or perhaps even scrap a report.

A lot of the business that is done at committees and in Parliament sits on a shelf because snap elections were called and policy was not completed. The ideas were never put to the government or laid on the table here in the House of Commons. Having fixed election dates certainly would improve governance.

I believe this legislation would bring about higher voter turnout rates. We have looked at a number of countries around the world. We have been encouraged when we have seen new struggling states and new countries go into a democracy. We have had a tremendous election in Afghanistan, an election in Iraq and elections in other places where perhaps democracy has been tried for the first time. We are amazed when in some of those jurisdictions the voter turnout is higher than it is here in Canada.

I think a lot of people are not attached to the system any longer, and they are pushing back and asking, “What is the use?” Holding elections in October, other than when a government loses the confidence of the House, I believe would improve voter turnout.

Bill C-16 takes the element of political manipulation out of our federal electoral system. In my view, only the natural governing party, as the Liberal Party of Canada likes to think of itself, could object to Bill C-16.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my presentation, I said I knew all members would listen with rapt attention to my comments, but I did not realize the questions would be gift wrapped like that.

The hon. member is absolutely correct. There have been several occasions, not only the one in 2000, to which my hon. colleague refers, over the past two decades where incumbent governments, whether they be federal or provincial, have called elections well before the traditional four year election cycle. Why? They have done it for purely political partisan reasons. Perhaps the polls seemed to indicate that they would be in a better position to win an election if an election were called at that particular point in time.

This is the reason why we have introduced Bill C-16, to put an end to the practices of previous governments that used their ability to call an election for their own purposes. In other words, for their own competitive advantages.

Canadians do not want to see that. It is not fair. It is certainly not transparent. It impedes both the business of government and the ability of the democratic electorate to fairly judge elections at a four year cycle.

I would suggest that not only will this bill put an end to those unsavoury practices. It will finally, after over one century of doing things the wrong way, correct the record and will finally put our country on an even keel with some of the more progressive countries that have already adopted fixed election dates.

[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?

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.

Speaker's Ruling

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-16. As has been noted by my colleagues, this was part of the ethics package put forward by my predecessor Ed Broadbent before the last election. We embraced his ethics package in our election campaign because of the deep cynicism felt by citizens around the manipulation of election dates. Fixed date elections was part of Mr. Broadbent's ethics package.

Floor crossing was also included in his package. I for one will be glad to see the day when the government sees the wisdom of ensuring that we do not have another fiasco like we had just after the last election when a member crossed the floor and vaulted into cabinet, or for that matter, when someone vaulted into the Senate and then to cabinet.

All these things cumulatively deepen the cynicism of citizens in the democratic process.

Much has been said about the lack of participation of young people in the election process. I am happy to say that my riding had the third highest voter turnout in the whole country due in part to the number of young people who participated in the voting process. I fundamentally believe it was because they had a reason to vote. Hopefully, we have brought them in on the conversation so to speak. They wanted to see change. One of the reasons they participated in my election campaign was they wanted to see real democratic reform. They did not want floor crossing to continue. They did not want to see senators vaulted in one day and thrown into cabinet the next, which is fundamentally undemocratic.

The legislation is something we obviously embrace because it was taken from our platform. We are delighted to see the government acknowledge it. Hopefully, it will continue to rob our agenda on democratic reform because it is so fundamental. If our citizenry is cynical about the democratic franchise, then it is pretty obvious what will happen. There are examples all around the world where citizens have decided they do not have faith in their democratic institutions.

Worth of mention is what we attempted to do as a party. I sat on the committee and put forward amendments, but sadly they were not embraced. However, I think they are worthy of mentioning today.

One important amendment, which was acknowledged by the government, was the fact that this legislation would not change the Constitution. I noted in committee that we accepted the fact. It was a pragmatic approach and there was nothing wrong with it. The Constitution is a reference point for all Canadians and it certainly should be a reference point for Parliament. We cannot always do the end run around the Constitution. At some point we have to acknowledge that the Constitution is there for a purpose. It sets out the rules of engagement for our democracy.

We accepted the pragmatism of the bill and its importance. We agreed that we did not want to open up the Constitution. I put forward an amendment that would have clearly set out what would happen with respect to issues of confidence. It stated:

If the House of Commons adopts a motion of non-confidence in the government and the Prime Minister does not resign despite the adoption of that motion, the Prime Minister shall advise the Governor General to dissolve the House of Commons on the day the motion is adopted and to command that a general election be held on a Monday selected by the Prime Minister that is not later than 180 days following the day on which the motion is adopted.

The reason I put that forward was we had discussed flexible fixed date elections in debate in the House and in committee. Why? Because in times of minority Parliaments if confidence in the government is lost, then it will fall and an election will ensue. I thought it very important for Canadians to see that in the bill. This is why I proposed the amendment. Sadly, it was not seen as being in order. I simply want to put that on the record as something we had prescribed, not to undermine the bill but to strengthen it. The other suggestions we made were minor, but we felt they would strengthen the bill as well.

The New Democratic Party took the bill seriously. We put forward amendments, as did our colleagues from the Bloc, to ensure that it would be the best it could be. For that, we need to understand the nature of the bill is and what we can do with it.

The bill will not change the other facets of the democratic deficit. I have already talked about floor crossing as the major gaping wound in terms of the rules of engagement in this place. I know my colleagues in Manitoba are putting forward an anti-floor crossing bill. We look forward to them embracing democracy there. We wish this place would as well.

We need to do so much more. In the last Parliament, a committee on government rules took a look at what could be done to strengthen our democracy by way of going to the people of Canada. In fact, if I may read from the committee, it recommended:

That the government launch a process of democratic and electoral reform to begin no later than October 1, 2005 and to be completed by February 28, 2006; and

That the process involve a special committee of the House of Commons, and a citizens’ consultation group;

That was agreed to by every party within the House of Commons in the last House.

What happened to this? Sadly, like many things that are important, particularly around democratic reform, it was put off to the side by the previous government. It was not embraced. We got excuses about hiring facilitators, et cetera. I might point out that it did not take the previous government long to put together the Gomery inquiry and it found consultants within a minute to fulfill the complement of resources needed for that.

For the consultation of citizens on democratic reform, the excuse was that the government did not have time. That is not good enough. What the House has to do, and it is incumbent to build from the fixed date elections, is to ensure that we go back to what Parliament agreed to do, through its committee structure, and start a process to go beyond just the fixed date elections. That, after all, is only the beginning. We need to have a committee of the House work on the concerns people have around democratic reform, look at other models and ensure it is congruent with where people are at and do this by way of citizenry consultation.

Canadians can look for more on that from the NDP. This party has not lost sight of the fact that Bill C-16 is not the end of ensuring we have real democracy in our country. In fact, it is the beginning.

If we were to look back to a place in history that is similar to where we are right now, we might find ourselves looking at the whole notion of responsible government and the situation of what was occurring in the 1840s, following the rebellions in 1837. We would find that the focus of the country at that time was how to reform our institutions to bring in real responsible government. I believe we are at a similar point in our history.

People have lost confidence in government institutions. They have lost confidence in the way we elect members of Parliament. They have lost confidence in some of the players, and we saw that in the most recent history. It is incumbent, as it was in the 1840s, to restore the confidence in our democratic institutions.

Quite frankly, we have to do what LaFontaine and Baldwin did at the time. That is not to throw away good ideas, but to embrace them. The only way that will happen is if we go to the Canadian people, through a citizens consultation, and use this place in the best way we can, by having a committee to come up with smart, sensible, democratic reforms. If we do not do that, we will be in a similar situation as we were in the 1840s, save for the fact that people stood up, proposed and made sensible changes to the structures of the democracy at the time.

We know the outcome of the rebellions of 1837 into responsible government in the 1840s was the beginnings of what we see today and eventually Confederation. If that had not happened in the 1840s, and many historians concur, we would not have had Confederation. We need to strengthen responsible government. We need to do that by going to the Canadian people by way of a consultation and by way of this place having a committee.

Why is that necessary? I want to confirm that there is a problem in our democracy simply by looking at the turnout from the last election, not in the numbers of people but the distribution of proportionality of the vote.

If we look to the last election, the governing party received 36% of the vote; however, it received 40% of the seats. That is actually not so bad compared to the election before when we look at the government of the day, the Liberal Party, receiving 36% of the vote and 43% of the seats. There is a problem here. It is a fundamental structural problem. It is about proportionality.

We have a model presented by the Law Commission not too long ago that showed that there is a way to embrace both first past the post and proportionality. Canadians are not satisfied when their votes do not count. We know that fixed date elections are simply one point. It is about what Canadians do when they get to the ballot box. They have to know that their vote will count and that is what we have to fundamentally change.

In summary, the New Democratic Party supports the bill because in essence it is our policy and we are glad that the government took it. We want to see real democratic reform and building on this democratic reform, we want an engagement with citizens to ensure that all of us have confidence in this place and the democratic structures of our country.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member from the Bloc on Bill C-16 and a have a couple of questions.

First, this is a new proposal for federal elections as we well know. We also know that there are two provinces that are working with fixed election dates, British Columbia and Ontario.

Generally, in the pharmaceutical industry for example, when a new product comes out, it has to go through various trials and testings and then it is released to the general public. Even at that we sometimes hear years down the road that it has to pull it off the shelf because some things were unforeseen et cetera.

I could use another example. When the same sex marriage issue was unfolding across the country, it was not until after various provincial superior courts ruled that it came to us on the federal side and we then asked the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion and followed it accordingly.

On Bill C-16, fixed elections dates, would it not be wise to see how it unfolds with the other provinces and as it unfolds see if there are any glitches and fine tuning that needs to be done before we just implement? As the pharmaceutical industry, for example, we may find that there are some problems and we have to backtrack.

They taught us in physics in school that we test first and then we implement. Would the member not consider waiting for the outcome of other provincial elections before we move forward on the federal side?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-16, which amends the Canada Elections Act, primarily to establish fixed election dates.

Just as I did at the previous stage, I would like to make it clear, from the outset, that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-16, despite the fact that it does have certain flaws and of course requires some improvement. Accordingly, we, the Bloc Québécois, proposed certain changes in committee. Unfortunately, they were defeated by the majority of the committee members. The Bloc Québécois believes that, with this bill, Canada joins other democratic countries around the world that have adopted such a principle, particularly, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg and the United States.

Within Canada, three provinces already have fixed election dates, namely, Ontario, Newfoundland and British Columbia. I believe British Columbia is the province with the greatest expertise, since it has been conducting elections this way the longest. During a committee meeting, via video conferencing, we had the opportunity to hear from the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer in British Columbia, who told us about that province's experiences in that regard.

In Quebec, elections have been held on fixed dates at the municipal level for a number of years and this principle has not reduced either the accountability of elected officials or democracy itself. Although some questions remain regarding the actual wording of the bill, its main advantage is to eliminate the prerogative of the party in power to call an election at the most politically opportune time.

Thus, to some degree, no matter the prevailing situation, the economy, the strength of the party in power or of the party in opposition, the internal dissension in a party—no matter the external circumstances—elections will now be held on fixed dates.

This will prevent the reoccurrence of what happened with the 1997, 2000 and 2004 elections, when the Liberals were in power—the Liberals of Jean Chrétien as well as of the current member for LaSalle—Émard, who I will not name as he has not yet quit his seat, but you know who I am referring to—and the prime minister exercised this prerogative in order to call an election in what I could call a meanspirited act, as I will explain.

On March 15, 1997, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the current Bloc Québécois leader, was elected leader of the party; former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien called the elections on June 2, 1997.

On July 8, 2000, the current Minister of Public Safety was elected as the leader of the Canadian Alliance, as it was known at the time. We know that this party had an identity crisis and changed names a few times. There was the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance. The ideology of the party was somewhat fuzzy making it difficult to know the name of the party.

A certain split occurred under the leadership of that member, the current Minister of Public Safety. A dozen members left the ranks of the Canadian Alliance to rejoin the Progressive Conservative Party led by former prime minister Joe Clark.

Ideologically speaking, there was some fuzziness. That atmosphere of internal division and tension prompted then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to call an election for November 27, 2000. Later, on March 20, 2004, the current Prime Minister was elected leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Another election took place June 28, 2004.

Thanks to fixed date elections, whoever is prime minister will no longer be able to take advantage of divisions or disorganization in the ranks of opposition parties. That would give him an unfair, if not unjust, advantage over the other parties. We will see what happens in practice.

In committee, my colleagues from other parties and I had some questions about whether this bill, as it is written, would not open the door to some type of prerogative, despite a fixed election date.

The bill indicates that in exceptional circumstances or in extraordinary circumstances, the prime minister could decide to call an election. The notion of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances is necessarily subjective. Indeed, what is exceptional to me could be quite normal for someone else. What is extraordinary for one person could be out of the ordinary, but not necessarily extraordinary, for another. Although this does not lessen our support for this bill, we must be prudent and consider some modification.

In future, elections will be predictable. That will enable more rational governance. Members of parliamentary committees will henceforth be able to set their agendas in advance, which will make the work of committees and of Parliament more efficient; at least, we dare to hope so.

In terms of predictable elections, this bill offers a clear benefit. Elections Canada will be in a better position to prepare its work. That will also make it possible to reduce the length of election campaigns. Elections Canada will be able to begin its preparations by counting backwards. Since the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Mr. Kingsley, will know the date of the election, he will be able to carry out all the preparatory steps necessary for holding the general election.

As part of my duties within the Bloc Québécois, I gathered reports of all the problems that arose in the last election and even those in the 2004 vote. In certain ridings, totally incompetent and unprepared returning officers provided us with some horror stories that would make the hair on your head stand up.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the hair may stand up on your head, but not for long and not so high as on my head, I admit. I say that to you as a friend, since you have a little hair, but it will not necessarily be the hair on top of your head that will stand up; it will be mainly the hair on the sides of your head.

These horror stories damage the credibility of the electoral process by which we democratically choose who will represent us.

From now on Elections Canada can prepare itself accordingly.

We also hope, with this bill, that there will be better voter turnout, that advertising around a fixed date election may foster improved turnout. I am talking about all advertising coordinated by the Chief Electoral Officer among certain target groups, such as young people, who do not vote much in any elections and who, in some instances, have no interest in politics.

Speaking of voter turnout, I must recall the point of the amendment that the Bloc Québécois tabled concerning the date.

We know that Bill C-16 provides for elections on the third Monday of October. Right from the start I am sure that the cabinet of the parliamentary leader of the government carefully examined all the calendars. Apparently that date does not conflict with any religious holidays or other holidays that might lower the participation rate. That is all right, but there is an event in Canada and Quebec, Thanksgiving, which is always on the second Monday of October—until the end of time. It is statutory. Let us look at a calendar.

I came close to selecting the year 2050 so as to have a date as far away as possible, but that is exactly the same year the government plans to begin dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. Imagine how far away that is. So this shows that the government’s green plan is totally unrealistic and ill-adapted, but you could invoke the irrelevance of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and before you get ready to do so, I will get back to the point.

If we consult the calendar for 2050, we see that the Thanksgiving holiday will be on the second Monday in October. But, in a vote held the third Monday of October, the previous weekend is reserved for the advance poll.

We, the Bloc Québécois, have suggested that the Thanksgiving weekend is one of the last nice weekends of the year, which is why people often plan to close up the cottage then. It is one of the last long weekends before winter, and people who have family in the regions can take advantage of it to celebrate Thanksgiving with the family, go eat turkey and so on, because there is still no snow on the ground in most parts of Canada. Of course, we sometimes get storms in mid-October, but typically the weather is still pretty nice. This is why we think that holding an advance poll during the Thanksgiving weekend does not encourage a very high turnout. I do not think elections have ever been held that particular weekend.

This is why we, the Bloc Québécois, have given the matter some thought and have suggested that the first Monday in May would be a more appropriate date.

I would not want to cause any doubt by saying this. We support Bill C-16 as written, but I still want to explain why the Bloc Québécois prefers the date it does. Unlike Thanksgiving, Easter does not occur on a set date. It sometimes happens at the end of March, and sometimes in April—even as late as the end of April. We only checked for the next 15 years, but 11 years from now, that is, once in the next 15 years, the advance poll would take place during the Easter weekend.

In all honesty, I must clarify what I said earlier about Thanksgiving.

Contrary to Thanksgiving, which is always the second Monday in October, Easter has only been the same time once in the last 15 years.

That is why we were in favour of May, although my colleagues democratically defeated the amendments that the Bloc proposed in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

For all these reasons and many others that I cannot mention for lack of time, I am announcing to the House that we are in favour of this bill and dare to hope that the participation rate will be higher in the next election. It has become apparent in previous elections, at least according to the participation rate curve over the last 20 years, that fewer and fewer of our fellow citizens take an interest in parliamentary democracy and fewer and fewer are willing to go and vote. That is very unfortunate in a democratic system like ours.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear. I will be supporting Bill C-16 but I see this as a beginning and not an ending.

We had a very productive debate in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when we dealt with this. However, I did not see a compelling, empirical argument for a lot of the assumptions that have been made around this flexible fixed election date.

I will support the bill but I do not see it as having particular teeth. I do not see it as dramatically changing the status quo because the House still has the opportunity to present a non-confidence motion and, therefore, we could be into a snap election. It is incremental but I hope we continue to look at other democratic reforms.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that in principle the hon. member is very much behind the bill.

I think we recognize that the bill is about leveling the playing field for all parties in the House, not to give the government an advantage to call a snap election when perhaps another party is not ready. It would allow for a better debate on policy and on principle so that all parties could go into an election prepared and our voters could make the best decisions. In that regard, I can expect that the hon. member would concur with Bill C-16.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

The government would have us believe that fixed election days will provide greater fairness, increased transparency, increased voter turnout and improved policy planning. While I support the concept of a fixed election date in principle, I do not believe Bill C-16 is a panacea for electoral reform.

In fact, I see this legislation, quite frankly, as more of window dressing than meaningful reform. From my perspective, we would need to have a constitutional amendment to actually affect the process in such a way that this would have real teeth.

However, that is not the case with this legislation today. This legislation presents flexible fixed election dates because the Governor General's authority and the discretion to take the advice of the Prime Minister at any time preceding the fixed election date could see Canadians into a general election.

This legislation is modelled on the British Columbia and Ontario laws requiring a fixed election date every four years, except when the government loses confidence in the House.

There is convincing research to suggest that fixed election dates can be an important element in a comprehensive strategy to address the democratic deficit. In theory, they can help remove seasonal obstacles to voting, especially when we live in a country with such diverse geography and such extremes in the climatic factors.

In theory, it can reduce voter cynicism. As we have heard in some of the questioning already, there is a bit of cynicism around the manipulation of election dates for partisan ends. It could also attract more representative candidates. I would be very interested in this because women represent 52% to 53% of the Canadian population and yet we sit at about 20% representation in the House. A fixed election date may help them plan well in advance when they want to seek the nomination and run for public office.

A fixed term election also offers a greater predictability for Canadians and for Elections Canada which currently has to be at the ready at all times. I would point out that this is especially exacerbated in this minority government and in the previous minority government. Governments and political parties would have greater certainty if we went to a fixed election date.

In theory, there would not be a constant cloud of impending elections. Therefore, Parliament could focus on governing and making Parliament work for people. It would also means that Elections Canada would not need to spend public dollars to be in a constant state of election readiness. It could plan more effectively with its staff and be able to rent the appropriate locations needed for the task it must fulfill during elections.

Beyond those advantages, fixed election dates could enhance the effectiveness of a variety of measures designed to actively boost voter turnout. The planning and staging of public events, such as seminars, adult education activities and public information campaigns, would help raise interest and involve people in public affairs. We would see benefits by having a fixed election date when we look at this aspect of engaging the citizenry.

During committee deliberations on this issue, convincing arguments were presented suggesting that one of the great advantages of the fixed election date would be to capture the attention, engagement and participation of students. We need Canadians to take advantage of their first opportunity to vote in order to establish this as part of their everyday life and their habits.

Voter turnout for young people is something I find disturbing. We need to look at all measures in order to counter this trend of fewer and fewer young people under the age of 30 voting. With young people voting less, civics education could be a key measure in engaging them.

A fixed election date in October would provide an opportunity to structure the curriculum to include electoral awareness and maybe mock elections and information presentations to engage students to become more interested in national issues and more active at election time.

However, I would hate to see fixed term elections as a reason to discontinue initiatives designed to promote voter awareness in the future.

Fixed election dates are a relatively new concept in most Westminster parliamentary systems. However, fixed elections at the municipal level in Ontario have been in place for many decades and these fixed election dates have not achieved a higher voter turnout. In my province of Ontario, it has not achieved increased voter participation. We have yet to see the results of fixed election dates increase voter participation.

Much of the work that needs to be done on electoral reform is not being accomplished by the bill before us. While this legislation does tweak the current system, I see no compelling reason not to support Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, but much more needs to be done.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to begin the third reading debate on Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, which would provide for fixed date elections.

First, I take note that the bill was carefully reviewed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. A range of expert witnesses has appeared before the committee and much discussion has taken place. The committee heard from the Chief Electoral Officer, representatives of political parties, academic experts, as well as myself.

While I have been informed that there were lively debates on key issues, I am pleased to note that Bill C-16 carried in committee without amendment.

Moreover, while there were some minor differences on some of the details of the bill, I was struck by the fact that all parties represented in the House of Commons supported the fundamental rationale of the bill.

I believe all parties share the view that elections belong fundamentally to citizens. They belong to the people. All parties agree with the principle that the timing of elections should not be left to the Prime Minister, but should be set in advance so all Canadians know when the next election will occur.

I will begin with the description of the current process for calling general elections and I will discuss some of the difficulties associated with it. This will be followed by a discussion of the many advantages associated with fixed date elections. Finally, I will be very pleased to present the specifics of Bill C-16.

Currently, it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister, whose government has not lost the confidence of the House of Commons, to determine what he or she regards as a propitious time for an election to renew the government's mandate. The Prime Minister then requests dissolution of the House from the Queen's representative and if the Governor General agrees, he or she proclaims the date of the election.

What we have is a situation where the Prime Minister is able to choose the date of the general election, not based necessarily on what is in the best interests of the country, but what is in the best interests of his or her political party. Bill C-16 would address this problem and would produce a number of other benefits.

Before going into details of this bill, allow me to discuss the key advantages of fixed date elections.

Fixed date elections would provide for greater fairness in election campaigns, greater transparency and predictability, improved governance, higher voter turnout rates and help in attracting the best qualified candidates to public life.

First, let me discuss the question of fairness.

Fixed date elections would help level the playing field for those seeking election in a general election. With fixed date elections, the timing of the elections would be known to everyone. Since the date of the next election would be known to all political parties, each party would have an equal opportunity to make preparations for the upcoming general election. Instead of the governing party having the advantage of determining when the next election would take place, an advantage it may have over the other parties for several months, all parties would be on an equal footing. It is only fair that each party would have equal time to prepare for the next election and to know when it would be.

Another key advantage of fixed date elections is transparency. Rather than decisions about election dates being made behind closed doors, general election dates would be set in advance, as prescribed by this bill. Once the bill is passed, the date of election will be known by all Canadians.

Predictability is also a key advantage of fixed date elections. Canadians and political parties alike would be able to rely on our democratic election system, working in an open and predictable fashion for all general elections. Plans then could be made on a reliable basis to prepare for and respond to fixed date elections.

Fixed date elections would allow us to improve governance. For example, fixed date elections would provide for approved administration of the electoral machinery by Elections Canada. The Chief Electoral Officer, in majority situations, would know, with certainty, when the next election would occur and would be able to plan according. This would almost certainly involve greater efficiency at Elections Canada and, therefore, would very likely save money for the taxpayers. Political parties would also likely save money as they would not have to remain on an election footing for extended periods of time.

Moreover, fixed date elections would allow for better parliamentary planning. For example, members of parliamentary committees would be able to set out their agendas well in advance, which would make the work of committees and Parliament as a whole more efficient.

Yet another reason for adopting fixed date elections is that this measure would likely improve voter turnout because elections would be held in October, except when a government lost the confidence of the House. The weather is generally favourable in most parts of the country. Fewer people are transient; for example, most students would not be in transition between home and school at that time and would be able to vote. Moreover, seniors would not be deterred from voting as they might in some colder months, and of course, citizens would be able to plan in advance to participate in the electoral process, arranging for advanced voting if they planned to be away. An additional benefit is that pre-election campaigns to get out the vote would be able to be well prepared as the organizers would be aware of exactly when the next general election would take place.

Finally, I want to mention an advantage that will resonate with many of those in this chamber. It is a difficulty with the current system that I have witnessed personally and something which I mentioned in interviews when Bill C-16 was first introduced.

Fixed date elections would help to attract many of the best qualified Canadians into public life because it would be easier for them to plan their own schedules to enable them to stand for election. For many of our most talented Canadians, unfixed election dates make it difficult to plan to enter public life because they simply do not know when the next election is going to be called. I think fixed date elections can only help to attract the most qualified individuals to public life.

I would like to return to the details of the bill. Legislation providing for fixed date elections must be structured to meet certain constitutional realities of responsible government. They include the requirement that the government have the confidence of the House of Commons and respecting the Governor General's constitutional power to dissolve Parliament. The bill before us was drafted carefully to ensure that these constitutional requirements continued to be respected.

The bill does not in any way change the requirement that the government must maintain the confidence of the House. Moreover, all the conventions regarding loss of confidence remain intact.

In particular, the Prime Minister's prerogative to advise the Governor General on the dissolution of Parliament is retained to allow him or her to advise dissolution in the event of a loss of confidence. The bill states explicitly that the powers of the Governor General remain unchanged, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion.

As set out in the government's platform, this bill is modelled after existing provincial fixed date elections legislation. It is similar to the approach taken by British Columbia, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. It should be noted that the legislation in those provinces is working and I know of no particular problems associated with it.

For example, British Columbia recently had its first fixed date election on May 17, 2005. Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador will soon have theirs on October 4, 2007 and October 9, 2007, respectively. In British Columbia there was no evidence, as some critics claimed, that what we get with a fixed date election is a lame duck government or any other associated problems.

This government's bill provides that the date for the next general election is Monday, October 19, 2009. Of course, this would be the date only if the government was able to retain the confidence of the vote until that time. For example, if the government were to be defeated tomorrow, a general election would be held according to normal practice. However, the subsequent election would be scheduled for the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year after that election. That is the normal model that would be established by this bill.

General elections would occur on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following the previous general election. We chose this date very carefully. One of my parliamentary colleagues will provide a full explanation of our choice during this debate. However, in brief, we chose the third Monday in October because it was the date that was likely to maximize voter turnout and to be the least likely to conflict with cultural or religious holidays or with elections in other jurisdictions. This raises an additional feature of the bill that I want to bring to members' attention, a feature that provides for an alternate election date in the event of a conflict with a date of religious or cultural significance, or an election in another jurisdiction.

In the current system, the date of the general election is chosen by the government, so it is rare that a polling date is chosen that comes into conflict with one of those cultural or religious events or elections in another jurisdiction. However, with the introduction of legislation providing for fixed date elections, there is the possibility that in the future a stipulated election date would occasionally be the same day as an important cultural or religious date or an election in another jurisdiction.

The Ontario fixed date election legislation provides that if there is a conflict with a day of cultural or religious significance, the Chief Election Officer may recommend an alternate polling date to the Lieutenant Governor in council up to seven days following the day that otherwise would be the polling day. Using a variation of the Ontario legislation, our bill empowers the Chief Electoral Officer to recommend an alternate polling day to the governor in council should he or she find that the polling day is not suitable for that purpose. The alternate date would either be the Tuesday or the Monday following the Monday that otherwise would have been the polling day. Allowing alternate polling days to be held on the following Tuesday or Monday is consistent with the current practice of holding federal elections on a Monday or a Tuesday.

Some opposition members had concern that this bill is illusory in that the Prime Minister could call an election at any point up until the fixed date of the election. However, the Prime Minister has to retain his prerogative to advise dissolution to allow for situations when the government loses the confidence of the House. This is a fundamental principle of the British parliamentary system and of responsible government as developed in this country. Moreover, if the bill were to indicate that the Prime Minister could only advise dissolution in the event of a loss of confidence, it would have to define confidence and the dissolution of the House of Commons would then be justiciable in the courts, something I think most people would realize would be a bad idea.

This bill which provides for fixed date elections is long overdue in Canada. In June, Ipsos-Reid released the results of a poll which showed that 78% of Canadians support the government's plan to provide for fixed date elections. The third week in October is already Citizenship Week in this country where we celebrate what it means to be a Canadian citizen. Of course, fundamental to being a Canadian citizen is our civic responsibility, including our duty to vote. It is fitting that the date of the federal general election would be set for the third Monday in October.

This legislation would provide greater fairness, increased transparency and predictability, improved policy planning, increased voter turnout and would help to attract the best qualified Canadians to public life. I hope my colleagues on all sides of the House will join me in supporting it. I look forward to the bill's speedy passage in the Senate.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

At this time, I would like to share with the House a ruling by the Speaker.

I am referring to the act to amend the Canada Elections Act. There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-16.

Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will not be selected by the Chair as they were defeated in committee. Consequently, the House will proceed to consider the motion to concur in report stage.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with the NDP opposition motion.

Tomorrow we should conclude debate on third reading of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment).

Next week we will begin the report stage of Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections, followed by Bill C-26, payday loans, Bill C-6, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, Bill C-17, an act to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts in relation to courts and then Bill C-27, dangerous offenders.

I will continue to consult with the House leaders of other political parties with respect to Bill C-31, the voter integrity bill, and we may be able to proceed with that next week as well.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with Bill C-28, the bill to implement the 2006 budget tax measures. This would be followed, time permitting, with Bill S-2, hazardous materials, and Bill C-6, the aeronautics amendments.

Tomorrow we will continue with the business from today with the possibility as well of completing the third reading stage of Bill C-16. I will talk to the opposition House leader about that after this.

Next week we hope to begin debate on some of the government's justice bills. The first one will be on the age of consent, Bill C-22. If we could get unanimous consent to pass that at all stages that would be very much appreciated.

We will go then to Bill C-27, our dangerous offenders bill and any cooperation we can get to move that along would be appreciated, I think, by the people of this country.

I am looking forward to sitting down with the official opposition and other parties to discuss the speedy passage of the many popular bills that the government has introduced and I am looking forward to their cooperation on that.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), I would like to designate Tuesday, October 31, as the day to continue debate on the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

In response to the member's questions, consideration in committee of the whole of the votes under the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, shall take place on Wednesday, November 1, 2006, pursuant to the Standing Orders. The second day for consideration of committee of the whole will be November 7, 2006.

As well, I should indicate that Thursday, November 2, 2006, shall be an allotted day.

With respect to the member's questions with respect to the same sex marriage, we will fulfill our campaign promise on that and we will be proceeding with it this fall.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

With respect to people in hospitals on polling day, the law is clear. For visitors or patients, there is no poll in a hospital. These people would have to have signified that they wanted to vote and stated where they were from. There's no poll in a hospital, which is a short-term facility. When former committees considered this, they recognized that in a hospital you're going to have people from different ridings. This may occur even at a Yukon hospital. If the committee wished to make an exception for hospitals in remote areas, it would have to amend the statute. This is something the committee should consider.

With respect to the VIC, voter information card, it is still being sent to people. Some are being thrown away. I'm having discussions right now with the president of Canada Post to see how we could prevent those cards from circulating. I'll come back to the committee once I'm advised by Canada Post about what they think they can do to help Canadian democracy in this respect.

The other question related to Bill C-16. I'll reply to it at the appropriate time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I have no problem whatsoever in allowing the time, but we have a minute and a half left. I think the comments on Bill C-16 might be best kept to another time, and maybe we can just focus on some of the other concerns in the minute and a half left.

Thank you.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I'm not normally on this committee, so I beg the committee's indulgence. Some of the things I want to put on record are related to elections, but may not be related to today's agenda, because I don't get that much access to the Chief Electoral Officer.

I'd like to talk about a couple of things that have come up in elections. One is related to ID, which we've talked about. I agree with the idea of having ID, but just to emphasize Mr. Owen's point, communities in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut don't have any roads to get there, so most people won't have driver's licences. Youths don't have driver's licences. There just isn't the ID available, so it's a problem for which we're going to have to figure out a solution.

The lists have been problematic in our area. I like a permanent electoral list. I just think we have to refine it better, because we go to every second house and there are people there who don't live there, they've moved, they have way more children than they're supposed to have, etc.

We have a big problem with hospitals in rural areas. It's true that if a person is in the hospital, they can vote. The problem is that for every person in the hospital, sometimes they have between five and ten visitors, especially if it's an acute thing. The problem is that you don't know when you're going to go into the hospital emergency ward. These people come from a hundred miles away because there's only one hospital in the entire Yukon, which is bigger than any country in Europe. People have to come from all over the Yukon, which results in them not being in their riding that day, so they're disenfranchised. They can't vote. There's no way they can get back a hundred miles to vote and there's no way they're going to abandon a person on their death bed who they didn't know was going to be there on election day.

I don't know if we still do voting cards. I don't get involved in the mechanics of the election that much, being the candidate, but there was an issue with this at some time in the past. A voting card came in the mail. In our area, there are a lot of these mailboxes. People go to their mailboxes and they throw out all their junk mail and anything that doesn't have their name on it, so you end up with piles of voting cards all over the place and people can just pick them up and vote with them.

Finally, my last point is on Bill C-16. As the Chief Electoral Officer, I'm sure you must be aware of the problems caused when there are two elections at the same time. That's not very convenient in Canada. It's very confusing for the voter. One election is confusing enough as far as enumeration, advance polls, and all that are concerned.

Unfortunately, we have Bill C-16, which doesn't make a provision that you're going to have elections. The first time there's an election, it's going to be three days away from a Yukon election. My suggestion is that we amend that bill so that there's an ability to change the time of elections by a month instead of three days, really, so that we don't have overlapping elections. I think everyone thinks that would make sense.

I don't know if you want to comment on any of those, but those are things that have come up in elections in my area.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kingsley, I would like to begin with a comment. We remain greatly perplexed as to the accuracy of the lists. The best evidence of this is that in your 2005 report, you asked that the deadline for distributing the lists be changed from October 15 to November 15. I doubt that this request was made simply on a whim. You no doubt realized that on November 15, the lists would be more accurate and would reflect the considerable number of moves in Quebec.

It explains why we put forward an amendment to Bill C-16 to change the election date suggested in the said bill, i.e. the third Monday in October. That is what is called “crying over spilt milk”.

When you appear again before this Committee after the next elections, we will again lament the inaccuracy of the lists. I warn you in advance that if the voters put there confidence in me once again and I am still a member of this Committee, I will say: “I told you so!”

That being said, I want to get back to the bingo cards. In your letter of October 5, I get the feeling you wanted to make things more complicated than they really are.

Has anyone from your office spoken to Mr. Blanchet or one of his representatives to have them explain this system to you? Do you consider that you have an in-depth knowledge of the bingo card system in Quebec?

For example, you said that a photocopier will be needed at each polling station. Are you aware of the NCR, or no carbon required forms? In Quebec, there is an NCR sheet. The party that shows up first gets the first copy, and the second gets the second copy. Why make it complicated when it’s so simple?

You also said that it would cost between $10.6 million and $23.5 million to hire staff to manage it all. Why not ask the poll clerk already in the polling station to cross names off on the lists, while having the bingo card next to him or her? The poll clerk could indicate that voter No. 28 voted in the last two hours. There would be no need for additional staff.

If you say that this involves costs for employees, some people will surely ask if they are crazy, when it comes to the bingo cards. I asked, and in Quebec, the work is done by the clerk.

You say that the list is confidential. Well, they would not be handing out photocopies of the list, but a sheet listing 28, 128, 132, etc. We have the lists, and we can check and see that voter No. 28’s name is Jean-Pierre Kingsley and that he voted between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m..

Procedure and House Affairs

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of reference of Tuesday, September 19, 2006, in relation to Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

The committee considered Bill C-16 and reported the bill without amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just in the interest of further understanding what, if any, consequential amendments might be necessary if we were to agree to this amendment to Bill C-16, I wonder if our witnesses could be asked their opinion on this. What ramifications might it have for other parts of the bill?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

The amendment proposed by the NDP is troublesome to me especially because, in Bill C-16, proposed sub-paragraphs 1 through 5 of Section 56.2 are, I believe, sufficiently explicit with regard to the procedure to follow and to the criteria to take into consideration when changing the day an election may be held. That includes the possibility that a Monday may not be suitable “[…] by reason of its being in conflict with a day of cultural or religious significance or a provincial or municipal election […]“.

Given that the Committee, in its wisdom, has decided to reject the Bloc’s amendment to change the date, the day or the month for holding a general election, I prefer that the Bill be maintained as is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

Are there any comments?

I will pose the question to the committee again. We'll do yeas and nays by hands.

It is moved that Bill C-16 in clause 1 be amended....

I'm sorry, did you want to speak? Perhaps I went too fast. My apologies.

Yes, Mr. Reid, speaking to the amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

I think we're ready for the question.

Members, how shall we vote? Just yeas and nays, with hands? Is that acceptable to the committee?

I see agreement.

The amendment before us is that Bill C-16 in clause 1 be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13, on page 1, with the following:

election must be held on the fourth Monday of April in the fourth calendar year following

Does this amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Members, the officials at the end of the table are here to help us with any technical questions we may have. Members, the amendments package was distributed on Monday. Amendments are marked by the party presenting them and are in the order in which they are stipulated by the bill. Indeed, we'll come to each amendment as we go through the bill. That's the order we've decided makes most sense.

We have an agenda in front of us, but before we begin, I'd like to introduce Mr. Wayne Cole, the legislative clerk assigned to this bill. He will also help with the process of walking us through it.

As the first order of business, everybody has Bill C-16 in front of you. I'll simply note for members that there are no amendments to clause 1.

Oh, I'm sorry. Let's deal with the amendments to clause 1, which are the Bloc motions of Monsieur Guimond.

(On clause 1)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

We're tabling the report. I understand that we can talk about this later, and we can move to clause-by-clause on Bill C-16. Thank you.

I want to advise members that as we move through clause-by-clause on Bill C-16, we will do so in the usual manner.

Perhaps I can ask the officials at the end of the table to introduce themselves, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, and welcome again this morning, ladies and gentlemen. We don't have a lot to do this morning, but I do want to get started on time. We have some other issues that we need to deal with.

To start with standard business, I want to remind members that today's meeting will be held in public as we begin clause-by-clause study of Bill C-16.

Before we begin that, I want to remind members, or at least let you know, that the government response to our thirteenth report that we tabled in June was delivered on Friday. I'm sure most of you have it by now. We'll talk a little bit about that at the end of the meeting. We can defer it until Thursday or we can talk about it at the end. We might want to consider whether we want to send a response.

As well, on Thursday, as members know, we're going to begin discussions--if time permits from today's meeting--on the conflict of interest code. But we can discuss that at the end of the meeting today. I will leave time for that.

Mr. Dewar, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Before we end the meeting, I would like to remind you of Tuesday's meeting. We're again going back to clause-by-clause on Bill C-16. Monday at 11 a.m. is the deadline for any amendments that members might have.

Thank you very much.

Members, have a great day.

The meeting is adjourned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay, that's easily done, and we will certainly do it. We will add that to the letter.

Members, if you wish to hear any other witnesses with respect to Bill C-16, we absolutely need to know that right now. I'm not trying to pinpoint anybody, but there were some concerns that more witnesses might be necessary. Is that still the feeling or can the chair conclude that we're done with our witnesses on this matter?

Mr. Owen.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

First, I just wish to make the point, and I assume the witnesses agree, that to label Bill C-16 as establishing fixed election dates is not accurate. A more accurate description would be that they are flexible fixed election dates. That's my first point.

Second, we've had a number of witnesses come before us and attempt to make the argument that moving to either fixed election dates or flexible fixed election dates would actually improve voter participation. I have asked these witnesses to bring forth studies they have that would demonstrate a clear causal link or correlation between higher voter participation and either fixed election dates, when the voter is completely free to vote or not, or flexible fixed dates. I've yet to see them, so I'm wondering if any of you witnesses would have that information.

Finally, I would like to address the point that you raised, Professor Massicotte, when you said that you expected, from a pedagogical standpoint, that the Constitution Act, 1867, rather than the Canada Elections Act, would be amended.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our guests in B.C., Sweden, and right here in Ottawa.

Most of you agree that this is a good bill and that it is the right direction in which to go.

Mr. Milner, your writings and the presentations you made to the Law Commission of Canada--which we all value and sadly see the demise of, but that's another story—were on the issue of democratic reform, and flexible fixed election dates are a piece of the puzzle. As I've said in committee before, from my perspective and that of my party, this is not the panacea for democratic reform; it's a piece of the puzzle.

Now to the point and questions around your presentations, I'd like to start with you, Mr. Milner, because I share your concerns about clarity in the bill. I am not a constitutional lawyer; I'm a humble servant of the people, and I'm glad you're emphasizing that this is something for the people. It is not for us; it's not the inside baseball that usually occurs. It is to make it explicit to the people of Canada that this is when an election will take place, and if it is not to be on this date there should be some darn good reasons why.

You've had some time to reflect on what possible changes could be made. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I like the idea that we have some criteria in the bill that are overt and clear about the intent of this bill.

Do you have any thoughts around that?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Someone said earlier, in his summary, that the legislation must be clear and that Bill C-16 simply maintains the status quo.

If I understand correctly, that means that Bill C-16 does not amend current conventions with respect to matters of confidence and if, in a situation where the government has a minority, the prime minister calls a vote of confidence on a matter involving values, and loses the vote, that means that at any time, an election could be called. Is that what you said?

[Prof. Louis Massicotte]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for inviting me.

I am familiar with Bill C-16 and the debates that took place in the House of Commons at second reading on September 18 and 19.

I will be making my presentation in French.

I can make an audible noise in English, enough to teach in an American university, so I'm willing to answer your questions in either language.

In the debate of which I am aware, I believe I was able to discern a reasonable consensus among the participants with respect to the nature and scope of the legislation. It is commonly referred to as the fixed election date bill, but everyone seems to clearly understand that in reality, the election calendar will not be as definitive as it is for our neighbours to the South, for example.

To paraphrase Mackenzie King, what Bill C-16 offers us are elections at fixed dates, to the greatest extent possible, but probably at dates that are not fixed. The Prime Minister will still be able to ask the Governor General to hold an early election, and not only if the government loses the confidence of the House. This is an interesting compromise.

A totally rigid election calendar is extremely rare in parliamentary systems. In that regard, among sovereign countries, Norway is the exception that confirms the rule. However, it is common to restrict the right to dissolve Parliament. In practice, election dates are more predictable under other parliamentary systems than in Canada.

That being the case, the temptation is great to suggest that Bill C-16 will change nothing; however, giving into that temptation would be a mistake. With this bill, a prime minister will not be able to request and secure the dissolution of Parliament as easily as before. In that context, it will be much more difficult to call an election simply to make it easier for a government to be re-elected. But one should not underestimate the climate, and thus a potentially negative public reaction to that kind of decision. It would definitely be starting off on the wrong foot for a prime minister to have to spend the first week of an election campaign responding to accusations of political opportunism, or even of having broken the law.

So, I endorse this bill. I must say that some of the arguments made in support of this legislation are not as convincing as others, but in my view, the strongest argument relates to equity. Giving a party leader the privilege of choosing the date of the next election, without any guidelines, gives that party an exclusive advantage, which may be a less decisive factor that some may say or believe. In my opinion, the general thrust of the Elections Act is clearly to put all the players on the same footing. That is an argument we hear over and over again in the debate and there is a good reason for that: it's a valid argument.

Where I did get the sense that there is a difference of opinion among MPs was with respect to the desire of some to take advantage of this bill to explicitly set out in legislation, and perhaps even in the Constitution, the conventions governing responsible government. As far as that goes, I'd say that it's quite a nice idea, but I don't see it as being urgent.

There has been a tendency to do that in Continental Europe. In France, they call it “rationalized parliamentary government”. It's clear and has more of an educational thrust. You have a short paragraph laying out exactly when a government is defeated and when it is not. I'd say that our practice in this area, which for the last century and a half has been to rely on conventions that I personally am quite familiar with, having studied parliamentary tradition, has served us quite well. There have been some ambiguous cases. Mention has been made of the May 2005 vote, but as you know, the debate did not last long. Ultimately, the House of Commons clearly reaffirmed its position. The lesson I draw from the May 2005 episode is that technicalities do not allow a government to prolong its existence indefinitely.

The other idea that has come forward is that some would like to amend one of the existing conventions by abolishing the prime minister's power to make any issue a matter of confidence. Let's just clarify what we're talking about here. This refers to a situation where a prime minister says to members of Parliament: “You may not like every detail of the measure I am proposing but, in my subjective opinion, it is fundamental. So, I am going to put you in the position of having to either accept or refuse; I am putting my head on the block. If you reject this measure, I will consider that I have lost your confidence and will advise accordingly. ” That is what happens when a prime minister asks for a vote of confidence. Some would like to see that abolished.

I do not agree. This practice is a feature of pretty well every parliamentary system, and there is a very important reason for that, which has to do with the very nature of the parliamentary system. A parliamentary system is not just one based on a legislative assembly of parliamentarians where the government does nothing more than fulfill the will of the House of Commons. Under a parliamentary system, what is known as the Executive does not just carry out orders. The strength of the parliamentary system is tied to the government's ability to show leadership, subject to the House of Commons' power to defeat it and the ultimate power of the electorate to arbitrate a fundamental disagreement that may have arisen between the government and Parliament.

Basically, Mr. Chairman, I endorse this bill both because it reduces the possibility of a prime minister abusing his power to dissolve the House of Commons, and because it maintains that power while at the same time increasing the chances that it will be used more appropriately.

In closing, I would just say that it is quite rare for a government to propose an institutional measure that it does not benefit from in one way or another. Now that this opportunity has arisen, I believe you should take full advantage of it.

Thank you.

[Prof. Andrew Heard]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to read my initial comments to facilitate the translation process at this point. I will try to keep my comments brief, to the point, and touch on the three areas I was told the committee wished especially to hear about. I look forward to more detailed discussions with your questions.

In my view, the bill largely preserves the status quo ante, with the major exception of shortening the maximum life of a parliament to four years. As with the three provincial measures dealing with the same subject, Bill C-16 sets a maximum life of four years for the legislature, while explicitly preserving the Governor General’s power of dissolution.

Legally the Governor General’s power of dissolution must be exercised in tandem with the Prime Minister. Both the proclamation issued under the royal prerogative to dissolve Parliament and the actual election writs issued under the Canada Elections Act must be done by and with the advice of the Prime Minister. As I can explain in detail later, the law gives the Governor General the upper hand in this process, while convention ensures that the Prime Minister usually, but not always, is the actual decision-maker.

The decision to dissolve Parliament is normally made by the Prime Minister, and the Governor General must act on his or her advice to sign the proclamations and writs. However, constitutional conventions also provide the Governor General with the power, in certain circumstances, to refuse the Prime Minister’s dissolution advice. This refusal is most widely supported for a minority situation where an alternative government could be formed by another Prime Minister.

In theory too, the Governor General may personally decide that Parliament should be dissolved and demand that the Prime Minister comply. However, this would be very controversial, indeed, and it could only be considered in the most drastic of circumstances, such as when Parliament is paralyzed and apparently beyond the control of a cabinet determined to cling to power.

In its current form, Bill C-16 neither alters nor is directly affected by the confidence convention. I can briefly summarize a difficult topic by noting that modern constitutional authorities generally agree on three types of votes involving a test of confidence. These various confidence votes can be grouped into three broad categories. The first two are relatively unambiguous.

The first is any otherwise ordinary motion that the government has designated in advance to be a matter of confidence.

The second group of confidence votes relates to motions to approve broad government policy, and defeats on these motions clearly demonstrate lost confidence. These votes include the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and the main budget motions. Most commentators also include the main budget implementation and supply bills in this category, which involve confidence, but we should note that other money bills do not.

The third set of confidence votes are the problematic group, occurring on motions worded to convey a lack of confidence in, or the serious censure of, the government or members of cabinet. The key for categorizing either stand-alone motions or amendments as confidence votes must inherently hinge on their wording. The problem is just what wording makes a motion a test of confidence.

Some examples are unmistakably clear, such as the one that precipitated the last election: “That this House has lost confidence in the government.” But a review of motions over the past century reveals that motions with much more varied and convoluted wording have been considered tests of confidence. As a result, motions become tests of confidence because their wording conveys a loss of confidence, a condemnation of the government, a call for resignations, or a declaration that the government is not fit, or has no right, to hold office.

Constitutional conventions have a limited legal status, but the courts have made use of them in various contexts. There are a few possible ways in which conventions might arise in judicial consideration of Bill C-16's current provisions, and I do not believe judicial consideration of conventions will significantly alter the bill’s current provisions.

However, the courts would be called upon to adjudicate the confidence convention if the bill were amended or a constitutional amendment proposed to prevent premature dissolutions, except when a government has lost confidence. In my view, this is highly undesirable for two reasons: one, the confidence convention currently has vital flexibility and room for evolution; and two, a confidence vote is a supremely political act that should not be subject to either judicial interpretation or enforcement.

Currently, the Governor General is the ultimate enforcer of the confidence convention. Although she is an appointed official, convention requires that either the current Prime Minister accepts political responsibility for her actions, or a new Prime Minister is appointed who will.

On the constitutional issue, it's not a question of if it is possible in our parliamentary system but it's a question of which process should be used. And in my view, the current provisions of Bill C-16 are achievable through ordinary legislation, but constitutional amendment may be needed to achieve its supposed objective of precluding early election calls not resulting from a loss of confidence. Amendment may well be required in the latter case, because changes substantially affecting the Office of the Governor General require a unanimous amending formula.

On a more optimistic note, the proliferation of similar legislative measures at the provincial level may raise citizen expectations for majority governments to last the full years. In B.C., for example, common discussions of elections are already premised on the belief that four-year cycles are required. Ironically, this proposed legislation may best achieve the government's stated objective by generating a new constitutional convention to limit a Prime Minister's election options.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Let's begin this morning's meeting.

I want to say a few things here first. Colleagues, we have two witnesses appearing by video conference for today's meeting from two different locations, as well as a witness with us this morning in the room. We are giving English feed through the video conference. Unfortunately, we cannot give French feed through the video conference. I understand that's okay with the witnesses.

For colleagues you will notice that when you're watching the monitors, there will appear a yellow frame around the speaking witness. There's no yellow frame now, but if you watch your monitors the witness who is speaking will be framed in yellow.

I would also like to remind members of some of the technical aspects of a video conference. It is more difficult for the interpreters and the witnesses to follow the discussions, so I ask members as well as witnesses to speak slightly more slowly and perhaps a bit more clearly, if that's at all possible. Thank you.

We will need time at the end of the meeting, of course, to discuss upcoming meetings. I remind members that this meeting is being held in public to consider Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, fixed elections dates.

I would like to introduce our witnesses first. We have Professor Henry Milner, appearing via video conference from Sweden, where it's 5 p.m.

Good morning, Professor Milner.

[Gilbert Gardner]

I do not believe that Bill C-16 will really contribute to greater equity in terms of the candidates and the people who get elected. I think that there will have to be some profound changes within society before we will see greater equity, and I don't think Bill C-16 will in any way change the current, unfortunate reality.

There is another type of legislation, in parliamentary democracies across the planet, that sets a specific timeframe. For example, it states that an election must be held within a two-month period. If you compare voter turnout rates in those parliamentary democracies that have fixed dates with others that don't have them, you will see that there isn't much variation. Certainly, there are cultural traits associated with voter patterns, but as a general rule, there is not much variation in terms of turnout rates. Consequently, I don't think that the fact of having a fixed date or an approximate date will change the behaviour of the electorate in terms of their voting patterns.

[Michael D. Donison]

One minute on this question, Mr. Chair? I'll try.

Mr. Chair, Madam Jennings is absolutely right when she says that legally nothing in Bill C-16 changes the current legal situation or the conventions of the Constitution. The reason it cannot is because the only way that can be affected is a constitutional amendment under section 41, which would require unanimous agreement, because it would affect the office of the crown.

However, we don't have to deal with theory. We can deal with practice. Again, I would cite all of the jurisdictions in the Westminster model that have adopted the fixed-date election. None of them has restricted the old discretionary powers of the crown, but in all cases they're working. And I gave a concrete example, Mr. Chair. If Mr. McGuinty, the premier of this province, decided to go to the Lieutenant Governor, he'd have to have an awfully good reason to dissolve now.

What fixed date elections do is create the expectation in the political classes and in the citizenry that this is the new norm, the new standard. So a prime minister or a first minister who decides to use his discretionary political power and rely on the crown's legal discretionary power would be treading on very difficult political ground. The reality is that jurisdictions have adopted it, and almost, I would dare to say, a convention of the Constitution has evolved, in which those first ministers simply do not...unless it's a national crisis or the government loses clear confidence, and that's very rare in a majority situation.

Theoretically, you're right, Madam Jennings, but in practical reality this will set the new standard. Certainly we've witnessed that in B.C. and Ontario.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentations.

I simply want to say that as a Quebecker, I have the same concerns as you do, Mr. Gardner, with respect to the date set out in the Bill as the fixed election date.

For a number of years in a row, I myself had to move on July 1. My view is that the proposed date is really problematic for Quebeckers.

My question is mainly for Ms. McGrath, and possibly Mr. Chernushenko as well.

First of all, Ms. McGrath, you stated that having fixed election dates would encourage Canadians to exercise their right to vote, which would lead to higher voter turnout rates. I'd like you to tell us -- I looked, but was unable to find any -- what studies you have that show a positive correlation between fixed election dates and the voter turnout rate?

I do know of studies showing that there are jurisdictions where they have fixed dates, but they also have penalties and sanctions that apply to citizens who do not exercise their right to vote. However, I have seen no studies where the decision to vote is one the citizen is truly free to make, and where the turnout is much higher than in those jurisdictions where there are no fixed election dates. So, I would be very interested in having that information.

My second question is addressed to Mr. Donison. How will Bill C-16 limit the Prime Minister's power to go to the Governor General's residence to ask that an election be called at a time other than the fixed date? I read the Bill very carefully and I saw no such restriction there. Indeed, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was boasting about the fact that Bill C-16 in no way limits the Governor General's discretionary power to call an election at any time before the fixed date.

Can you tell me where you see such a restriction, since you mentioned that we now have a Prime Minister and a party that would be ready, as you said, to

“walk the walk and talk the talk”. Where is it in Bill C-16?

[David Chernushenko, Senior Deputy to the Leader, The Green Party of Canada]

Thank you very much.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for inviting the Green Party to offer our views today on Bill C-16. I'll take just a few minutes to summarize our views.

We do not oppose the bill; however, we do not believe there is any particular benefit to be gained from moving to fixed election dates. While there are many possible pros and cons, none of the alleged benefits seem so strong as to make it a priority to move forward with this amendment.

If the goal of Bill C-16 is to reinvigorate democracy in Canada by making elections more fair, by increasing voter turnout, by increasing accountability, or by some other argument in favour of fixed election dates, we do not agree that any of these will be the inevitable result.

Because Canadian parliamentary tradition requires that a government have the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons, we do not see how a fixed election date is desirable, or even necessarily possible. As a political party that must plan for elections, it might seem at first glance that a fixed date would make our lives simpler and our preparations more predictable. But given that a government might still fall at any time, we would still need to be on a near constant state of readiness--as would Elections Canada, for that matter.

While the Green Party believes wholeheartedly that many aspects of our electoral system need improvement, moving to fixed election dates is not on our list of priorities. Rather, we believe all of the time and energy being devoted to this bill could and should be devoted to moving towards a more proportional form of representation.

We do wish to see a higher voter turnout; increased citizen engagement; greater government transparency and accountability; higher involvement of youth, new Canadians, and marginalized Canadians; and reduced cynicism about politics in general. We believe these are all necessary and laudable goals that must be addressed by the government. However, we do not see how a fixed election date will necessarily help.

To reiterate our views, we are not against fixed election dates, but we do not see this bill as the kind of significant electoral reform that Canada needs. We hope it would be just the start of electoral reform.

Thank you.

[Anne McGrath, President, New Democratic Party]

Thank you very much for the invitation to come and speak to you about Bill C-16 from the perspective of the NDP.

We have circulated a brief and everybody should have a copy of it. It goes through some of the reasons we support the bill, introduces a caution, and mentions some of the further steps that we think need to be taken.

We support the bill because we believe that setting fixed dates will strengthen democracy in Canada and will help to build confidence in a fair and transparent electoral system, something that I think is definitely needed in our current climate.

As a matter of fact, the idea of these fixed dates was part of a seven-point ethics plan that was put forward by our leader, Jack Layton, and the Honourable Ed Broadbent prior to the last election. It included a proposal for fixed election dates and some other very important initiatives that were designed to revitalize our democracy, make government accountable to Canadians, and restore confidence in our electoral system.

The reason we have for supporting fixed election dates is that we believe it will level the playing field for the political parties. The timing of the election has been a powerful tool for governing parties in our system. The flexibility that they have to call an election when they're ready and in the best possible position provides an advantage for the governing party that we think is unfair and undermines democracy and transparency. We think setting the date at predictable intervals, rather than when pollsters think the timing is right, will be a great improvement.

We also believe it offers greater predictability for Canadians, for Elections Canada, which currently has to be prepared at all times, for the government, and for political parties. We think Parliament can then focus on governing and on making Parliament work for people. It also means that Elections Canada doesn't have to spend our tax dollars to be in a constant state of election readiness.

We also support the legislation because we think it will help to restore confidence in the fairness of our electoral system. It's hard to say how many, but some Canadians have definitely lost faith in our democracy. We think this legislation will help to restore fairness and, very importantly, the perception of fairness.

We think Canadians will be more likely to vote and to participate in the political process if the system is fair and accountable. Others have spoken about the increase in the diversity of the voters, particularly appealing to women and young people.

Of course, we hope it will also result in increasing voter participation rates. We think that if Canadians know in advance when the election day is, they'll know how important it is and what the issues are. It will allow us to better promote the issues in the election, make sure voters are registered, and make sure Canadians exercise their right to vote.

There is a caution that we think is important. With an election looming, the government party may have an advantage other than that of fixing the election date, and that is, using government resources to promote the party to the electorate through advertising, announcements, and campaign-like tours. We think it is a caution that we need to keep a close eye on.

We are recommending that the legislation be passed in the context of further reforms that are very important in revitalizing our democracy: things like taking power out of the hands of lobbyists and making sure decisions are made in the open; having appointments that are based on merit rather than political connections; reforming the appointment of Supreme Court judges, with an independent committee to provide criteria, examination, and debate; ending abuses in the appointment of other public officials; improving our freedom of information legislation; passing a whistle-blower act that applies to the private and public sectors; passing a new act to make MPs accountable when they switch parties so that electors can decide whether or not they approve of that decision; passing a leadership accountability act so that we can look at party leadership contests; and ensuring some form of proportional representation.

[Michael D. Donison, Executive Director, Conservative Party of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to you and members of the committee for giving the Conservative Party and the other political parties the opportunity to appear before you today to speak to Bill C-16, which deals with fixed date elections.

I suggest, Mr. Chair, we call it fixed-date elections rather than fixed election dates. What we are fixing is the date, not the election.

Generally speaking, Mr. Chair, first of all--and then I want to speak a little bit specifically about the effects it will have on political parties from an operational point of view--this is an idea whose time has come. This has already been incorporated into other Westminster British parliamentary systems, and I think you've already had evidence before the committee to that effect. I would reference, of course, the province of Ontario, the province of British Columbia, the province of Newfoundland, and also commissions in both Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have recommended to their governments the same.

It is certainly the situation in the Scottish Parliament, in the Welsh Parliament, and I believe in three of the Australian state legislatures, all on the British Westminster model, and I'm not aware of any evidence that it's not working as it has been adopted by them.

Really what this idea does is a few things. I'll speak generally and then I'll speak specifically about parties. I think it combines incremental reform with the maintenance of the flexibility needed in our system of responsible government based on the British Westminster model. So it's an incremental, non-constitutional formal change.

What I've observed over the years, Mr. Chair, is when politicians are in opposition they often talk good talk about electoral and parliamentary reform but somehow when they get into government they don't seem to deliver. I think what you have before you is in this case we have a prime minister and a government who specifically campaigned on this issue and are now in government and prepared to implement it.

In many ways--and of course there has been lots of commentary, academic and otherwise, about this--of all the Westminster models, Canada probably has the most concentrated prime ministerial system, in the sense that the Prime Minister is institutionally, politically, and legally more powerful in Canada than in other Westminster systems. This is really a relinquishment, a voluntary relinquishment of prime ministerial discretionary power when it comes to calling an election.

Specifically in terms of political parties, I think what's important about this proposed reform is that it improves both fairness and predictability in our electoral system, fairness in the sense that the governing party of the day, particularly in a majority government situation--and members may want to talk about that--will no longer be at an advantage over the opposition parties in terms of the timing of the election, because everyone, including all citizens and voters, will know the election date. Therefore I think it creates a level playing field for all parties, both government and opposition.

I think the second and even more important reason, from my point view as an executive director of a political party, is it will allow a lot more predictability, predictability in terms of planning, whether it's organizing the party for election ramp-up, or volunteer and candidate recruitment. And I would particularly emphasize candidate recruitment. I notice, for instance, in a paper that I think has been presented to you by Professor Milner, that he suggested--and this is an idea I hadn't thought of, actually, Mr. Chair--that it will increase the chances of women and minorities to have much better advance notice in terms of planning their lives so that they can participate as candidates in the political process. I hadn't actually thought about that. I think it's something that needs to be considered as well, and I think commends the bill even further.

So really what we have, Mr. Chair, is a situation where we're going to replace the current situation where the best interests of the current governing party in terms of the timing of the election will be replaced with what is in the best interest of the country and of citizens.

I would just like to finish off, and then I'll of course be open to questions. I want to quote a Canadian politician, an eminent Canadian politician, on this very subject. I have his text and I can certainly table the document. He said as follows:

Elections are democratic events that belong to all of us. They do not belong to the party in power, to manipulate for its own partisan advantage. Elections do not belong to premiers, to use as they see fit for their own political agenda. Elections belong to all of us, as citizens, and we have a right to know when they will be held, so that we can plan effectively and participate fully. Mr. Speaker, elections belong to all political parties, so that all of us are on an equal footing and can compete for office fairly.

I'm quoting from the statement in the Ontario legislature of the Honourable Dalton McGuinty, the Liberal Premier of Ontario, when he introduced the bill creating fixed election dates in the province of Ontario.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

We're going to start the meeting now. We're waiting for one more witness representative to show up, but perhaps they will mingle in as we get started. We are going to get started because we have a number of witnesses to hear from and ask questions of, so time is of the essence.

I would like to advise members again that this meeting is being held in public.

Delivered to you this morning should have been a copy of a letter from Ms. Johnson as follow-up to our last meeting. There were some requests for information in writing. You have that before you. Hopefully that will help complete the questions of Ms. Johnson.

The purpose of the meeting today, of course, is consideration of Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, specifically with a focus on fixed election dates.

We have witnesses from the various parties. I'm assuming these are our new witnesses. We will proceed in a suggested order. I suggest that we proceed in the order of the Conservative Party first, the Bloc Québécois second, the New Democratic Party third, and the Green Party.

I'm open to instructions from the committee, but I have found that the meetings of five-minute rounds have worked well. However, today we have a number of witnesses, and with the committee's permission I would like to suggest we extend that to seven-minute rounds, at least for the first round, to allow for multiple answers.

Is it okay that we proceed with seven-minute rounds for the first round? I'm seeing nods. Is there any disagreement on a seven-minute round?

Ms. Jennings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Looking around the table, I think the members of the committee have concluded their questions.

Ms. Johnson, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you very much for coming out this morning. Obviously you are quite an expert in your field, and we thank you very much for the time you took to prepare for this morning's meeting. On behalf of the committee and the Government of Canada, thank you so much for your assistance in what we have to do with Bill C-16, and I wish you a great day.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Do you have advice as to what date we should set? I’d like to reassure the government: that does not necessarily mean that my party opposes the bill; it’s only that there is overlap between municipal elections in Quebec and the date of October 19.

Based on your experience in democratic elections, do you believe there could be a problem if the date of federal elections, as proposed in Bill C-16 now under consideration, overlaps with that of municipal elections held in over 2,200 municipalities in Quebec? Do you see a problem or a risk of confusing the electorate?

It will be my last question. My time is up, anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Ladies and gentlemen, we'll begin the meeting.

Members, I want to remind you that today we are having a video conference from Vancouver, British Columbia. Because of that, I have been asked to advise members that we need to speak a little more slowly and perhaps a little more clearly than we are used to doing at some of our other meetings. Thank you for that.

I want to remind members as well that this meeting is being held in public. We will start with a brief introduction from our guest this morning, followed by five-minute rounds of questioning. We will continue to do those rounds in the usual format with the official opposition, the Liberals, then the Conservative Party, the Bloc, and the NDP, and then begin the second round.

The purpose of this meeting is to continue our consideration of Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act for fixed election dates.

Our witness this morning is Ms. Linda Johnson, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer for the Province of British Columbia. As members know, Ms. Johnson was asked to present for this committee as British Columbia is the only province to have gone through the entire process under the fixed election date format.

We certainly appreciate very much your appearance this morning, Ms. Johnson. We all realize that you had to get up a lot earlier than we did for this meeting, and we appreciate that very much.

I will turn the meeting over to you now for your statement, for whatever you would like to say to the committee, and then we will open for questions.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Do you want me to ask on bended knees, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Kingsley, you were supposed to give us an answer about page 32 of our report aimed at improving the integrity of the electoral process. We wanted to know if the practice of bingo cards was allowed under the Elections Act of Canada. I would like to know when you will give us that answer and how.

If you decide that it's allowed, will there have to be an amendment to the legislation or only an administrative amendment? That question is addressed to you.

I want to come back to the question I put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. The government is supposed to answer the report we tabled in June before October 20. Does the government intend to answer before October 20? If so, will that answer include changes to the legislation which are not included in Bill C-16? The aim of Bill C-16 is to implement fixed election dates. However, if we wanted to improve other aspects of the elections process, would there have to be another Bill?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I want to ask more questions, Mr. Chairman, but not necessarily to Mr. Kingsley. Let's see if we have a good Parliamentary secretary, able to answer our questions, because I want to question him about the report. You may say that this is not directly related to Bill C-16 but, if we have to amend the Act, it's important to know when the changes will happen.

I could come back for the next round.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

How did it go with Bill C-16?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm accompanied today by Mrs. Diane Davidson, deputy chief electoral officer and chief legal counsel; and Mr. Rennie Molnar, senior director of operations, register, and geography.

Members of the committee may recall that when I appeared on June 13 of this year I expressed my agreement with the idea of fixed-date elections. The proposed legislation would facilitate many aspects of Elections Canada's planning and operations. On June 13, I submitted a written summary of those benefits, and I have brought copies of that document for you today. I understand they've been recirculated.

I will comment on some aspects of the proposed legislation from the perspective of electoral administration, which the committee may wish to consider. As it stands now, my office plans for general elections incrementally through the setting of regular readiness dates throughout the election cycle. The frequency of these dates is necessarily greater in minority government situations. The moment there is a majority government in power, elections on a date set by statute would enable Elections Canada to plan more securely in four-year cycles, with contingencies for delivering general elections that could still occur outside the fixed date.

There are a number of operational benefits associated with fixed election dates. For example, at the issue of the writ, returning offices could be up and running with communications technology installed and staff hired and trained. This is not small. This would allow for better service to electors, and a fixed date would also allow my office a greater advance opportunity to identify and secure locations for polling stations. This would include firm commitments for access to sites that are accessible, thus resulting in improved locations and greater convenience for electors.

Knowing the date of the election in advance would also permit targeted updates of the national register of electors, done in close consultation with members of Parliament, political parties, and electoral district associations, to be performed in the month leading up to the writ being issued. It is not automatic that we would do this, but it's a possibility. This would result in a more up-to-date preliminary list of electors for candidates at the start of the election and fewer revisions to the list during the electoral period.

Holding elections at a fixed date would also be beneficial for our outreach and education programs, as well as for our advertising, which could be implemented more effectively before and during general elections. From an operational point of view, the fall--particularly the month of October--is a good time of year to have an election. It may well be the best.

It should be noted however that should the polling date fall on the third Monday of October as proposed, this would result in the advanced polls falling on the long Thanksgiving weekend.

From 2000 to 2006, turnout at advanced polls has more than doubled, from 775,000 voters to 1,600,000. This means that such a decision would probably have a real impact.

Subsection 56.2(1) of Bill C-16 provides that the Chief Electoral Officer may, if he thinks that the polling date is not suitable, including by reason of its being in conflict with a day of cultural or religious significance or a provincial or municipal election, choose another day to recommend to the Governor in Council. Should the recommendation be accepted, the Governor in Council would have to make an order to that effect before August 1st in the year in which the general election is to be held. You're all well aware of this provision.

Currently, the Chief Electoral Officer does not have such discretion. The authority to recommend an alternate polling day could rest with Parliament directly. Further, if the date of the election has to shift beyond a Tuesday, it would be preferable to have it moved to the next day rather than the following Monday as currently proposed.

I would like to add a few words on the current advertising practices. Treasury Board already imposes a ban on certain types of government advertising during the election period. To quote from the Government of Canada Communications Policy:

Advertising is only permitted when: an institution is required by statute or regulation to issue a public notice for legal purposes; an institution must inform the public of a danger to health, safety or the environment; or an institution must post an employment or staffing notice.

The committee may wish to consider expanding the timing of this ban to four weeks before the issuance of the writ of election. It might be deemed appropriate as well to subject political parties to this restriction.

To conclude, the proposed legislation would improve our service to electors, candidates, political parties and other stakeholders.

My officials and myself will be pleased to answer your questions.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our guests.

I will just state for the record that as a party we support this. In fact, it was part of the ethics package of my predecessor, Mr. Broadbent. We're still looking for a couple of other things, such as floor crossing, and in fact the whole idea of real democratic reform and proportional representation, but we'll save that for another day.

Let's turn to Bill C-16. There's a paper attached to my package from the Library of Parliament about the history of the private members' bills vis-à-vis fixed election dates. It provides some interesting ideas, and one of them in fact is from our very own Prime Minister. I guess this dilemma we have is whether we are going to deal with the C word--not wanting to open up the Constitution. I think most people would concur that it probably wouldn't be helpful to open up the Constitution to get this done. But I think if you take a look at Mr. Rowland's private member's bill in 1970, the concerns that have been presented before us are addressed.

I'm wanting this to go through, and I'm supporting the bill, but do we actually believe there is a point where we will deal with the constitutional reform? Does that need to be done in the future? If we do this, at some point could we take a look at that? Would it be possible? I'll leave that to you.

The second thing I would ask is how this affects the government's plans for Senate reform.

Third, please explain to us...because I don't think this should be called fixed election dates, they are flexible fixed election dates. Mr. Milner provided that language. I think it's important that we say that, because it confuses the electorate. They think, oh, no matter what, we'll have these fixed dates. That will undermine the idea of the minority Parliament.

My last point is that citizens should understand that you won't have a campaign for four years, that there will be some boundaries around when you're allowed to start campaigning. Perhaps you can give us some insight into that, because I think a lot of people are quite rightly concerned that we'll have campaigns going on forever--and no one, not even us, would like that.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Minister, Bill C-16 sets the elections on the third Monday in October every four years, commencing in 2009. You stated in your remarks that the time will not conflict with any holidays or anything they can call then. I find it very appropriate that you stated that National Citizenship Week is the third week in October, and I think that's a great time to have elections.

You did then go into a little bit about how Thanksgiving might conflict with the advance polls. Can I first of all have your assurances that there are no conflicts with the part about the third Monday? Then could you talk a little bit more about how we think Thanksgiving may conflict in some of the years when Thanksgiving is that late in the year?

[Rob Nicholson, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

With me are Warren Newman, who is general counsel for constitutional and administrative law; Kathy O'Hara, deputy secretary to the cabinet, machinery of government; and Dan McDougall, director of operations, legislation and House planning.

Good morning, colleagues. I'm very pleased to appear before your committee to talk about Bill C-16 relating to fixed election dates. I will begin by describing the present system for calling general elections and I will mention some of the difficulties it creates.

I also want to talk about why the government chose to draft the bill the way it did, and why the route we took was both necessary and effective.

Finally, I would be happy to respond to any questions.

Today, as you know, it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister whose government has not lost the confidence in the House of Commons to select what he or she regards as a propitious time for an election to renew the government's mandate. The Prime Minister then requests dissolution of the House from the Governor General, and if the Governor General agrees, he or she proclaims the date of the election.

What we have is a situation where the Prime Minister is able to choose the date of the general election--not necessarily what is in the best interests of the country, but conceivably what is in the best interests of his or her party. Bill C-16 will address this situation and produce a number of other benefits.

As set out in the government's platform, this bill is modelled after existing provincial fixed-date elections legislation. The legislation is similar to the approach used by British Columbia, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. British Columbia just had its first fixed-date election on May 17, 2005. Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador, will soon have their fixed-date elections October 4, 2007, and October 9, 2007 respectively.

In British Columbia, there was certainly no evidence of what some critics have called a lame-duck government, and certainly no evidence that the legislation was in some way illusory or ineffective.

The government's bill provides that the date for the next general election will be Monday, October 19, 2009. Of course, this will be the date only if the government is able to retain the confidence of the House until that time. This bill does not affect the powers of the Governor General to call an election sooner if a government loses the confidence of the House. For example, if the government were to be defeated tomorrow, a general election would be held according to normal practice; however, the subsequent election would be scheduled for the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year after the next election. That is the normal model that would be established by this bill. General elections would occur on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following the previous general election.

We chose the third Monday in October because it was the date that was likely to maximize voter turnout and the least likely to conflict with cultural or religious holidays or elections in other jurisdictions. This raises an additional feature of the bill that I want to bring to your attention, which provides for an alternate election date in the event of a conflict with a date of religious or cultural significance, or an election in another jurisdiction.

In the current system, the date of the general election is chosen by the government, so it is rare that a polling date is chosen that comes into conflict with a date of cultural or religious significance, or with elections in other jurisdictions. However, with the introduction of legislation providing for fixed-date elections, there is some possibility that in the future the stipulated election date will occasionally be the same as a day of cultural or religious significance, or an election in another jurisdiction.

The Ontario fixed-date elections legislation provides that if there is a conflict with a day of cultural or religious significance, the Chief Elections Officer may recommend an alternative polling date to the Lieutenant Governor in Council up to seven days following the date that would otherwise be the polling date.

Using a variation of the Ontario legislation providing for fixed-date elections, our bill empowers the Chief Electoral Officer to recommend an alternate polling day to the Governor in Council should he or she find that the polling date is not suitable for that purpose. The alternate date would be either the Tuesday or the Monday following the Monday that would otherwise be the polling date. Allowing alternate polling days to be held on the following Tuesday or Monday is consistent with the current federal practice of holding elections on a Monday or a Tuesday.

Fixed-date elections will provide numerous benefits to our political system. With fixed-date elections the timing of general elections will be known to all, which will provide for greater fairness. Instead of the governing party having the advantage of determining when the next election will take place and being the single party that may know for up to several months when it will occur, all parties will be on an equal footing.

Another key advantage of fixed-date elections is that this measure will provide transparency as to when general elections will be held. Rather than decisions about election dates being made behind closed doors, general election dates will be public knowledge. I think they will allow for improved governance. For example, fixed-date elections will allow for better parliamentary planning. Members of parliamentary committees will be able to set their agendas well in advance, which will make the work of committees and Parliament as a whole more efficient.

Another reason for adopting fixed-date elections is that this measure will likely improve voter turnout because elections will be held in October, except when a government loses the confidence of the House. The weather is generally favourable in most parts of the country at that time of year, and fewer people are transient. So for example, most students will not be in transition between home and school at that time and will be able to vote. Moreover, seniors will not be deterred from voting, as they might in some of the colder months.

Now, it should be noted that the weekend before the third Monday in October is Thanksgiving weekend. This would be the weekend of advance voting, as advance voting is set in the Canada Elections Act for the tenth, ninth, and seventh days before polling day. That would be the Friday, the Saturday, and the Monday prior to the election date. I believe that having Canadians discussing the general election during part of a Thanksgiving weekend is not a bad thing. And if some Canadians wish to spend a few minutes voting in advance polls that weekend, all the better.

For your information, only 10.5% of those who voted in 2006 voted in the advance polls, while 2.8% voted either at a returning office or by postal ballot. The vast majority of voters, 86.7% in 2006, cast their votes on polling day. So those who would have to staff the advance polls, which are open from noon until 8 p.m. in fewer than 3,000 locations, would be aware of this responsibility before they accepted the position.

Some members have indicated that the bill is illusory in that the Prime Minister can call an election at any point up until the fixed election date. All I can say is that this view does not reflect the way our system of responsible government actually works. The Prime Minister has to retain his or her prerogative to advise dissolution to allow for situations when the government loses the confidence of the House. This is a fundamental principle of our system of responsible government.

It has been suggested that the government should insert a clause into Bill C-16 constraining the Prime Minister's ability to request dissolution of Parliament to certain circumstances. Let me be clear. Including a clause that attempts to constrain the Prime Minister in requesting dissolution of Parliament would, in our view, present a risk, which we should not ignore, that the legislation would be found unconstitutional if challenged in the courts. Why? Under the rules and conventions of responsible government, the Governor General's power to dissolve Parliament has to be exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Governor General's legal power under the Constitution and the exercise of that power on the advice of the Prime Minister are fundamentally and inseparably linked. If one limits the Prime Minister's ability to advise, one risks constraining the Governor General's powers in a way that would be unconstitutional.

An amendment in relation to the powers of the Office of the Governor General would require, of course, the consent of the Houses of Parliament and of the legislative assemblies of all provinces, and I think with respect to this piece of legislation, it is unnecessary and unwanted.

It has also been suggested that governments should insert a clause into Bill C-16 that would define very specifically what constitutes a vote of confidence. This would, it is argued, prevent governments from engineering their own defeat in minority situations. Again, constraining the Prime Minister's power to advise the dissolution of Parliament except in certain circumstances would risk being declared unconstitutional and fettering the Governor General's powers. Moreover, if the bill were to attempt to define confidence or to provide criteria for when confidence is lost, the whole concept of confidence itself would risk becoming justiciable in the courts, something that would run contrary to the fundamental constitutional principle of the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches and the appropriate role of the courts in our constitutional system of parliamentary democracy.

The government has followed the broad approach of British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Ontario, which is an approach that works. If one looks for other examples within the British parliamentary system where fixed-date elections are in place, such as New Zealand, Scotland, and Wales, none of them has provisions like the ones that have been suggested by certain members at second reading.

The government is committed to making this modest but important change to improve Canadian democratic institutions and practices, but this change must be done in a way that is respectful of our Constitution, our great heritage, and the principles of responsible government.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that the third week in October is National Citizenship Week in this country, a time when we celebrate what it means to be a citizen of Canada. It is fitting, then, that the general election date will be set for the third Monday in October--a most fitting and functional expression of our citizenship.

Fixed-date elections will provide for greater fairness, increased transparency and predictability, improved policy planning, and, I believe, increased voter turnout. In June of this past year, Ipsos Reid released the results of a poll that showed 78% of Canadians support government's plans to provide for fixed-date elections. I hope you will join me in voting in favour of this important and widely supported measure.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for coming this morning.

I would like to remind members that this meeting will be held in public today, so please remember that.

The purpose of the meeting today is to begin our discussions on Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act. We have a lot of ground to cover today, so I ask for the committee's diligence. We've invited the Government House Leader and his officials to appear today at this meeting. As well, we have invited the Chief Electoral Officer to appear following the minister.

I also remind the members that at our business meeting last week we agreed that the questioning rounds would be limited to five minutes. I will be watching and trying to assist committee members in keeping their questions short so that we can actually leave ample time for answers from the witnesses, as that, of course, is the point. As usual, our round of questioning will begin with the Liberals, then the Conservative Party, then the Bloc and the NDP, each having five minutes. We will certainly keep track, or try our very best to keep track, of members who have put up their hands. Please make sure you leave your hands up until either the clerk or I see you. That way we won't miss anyone at all.

The only other thing I want to mention is that we have divided the time. If necessary, the minister will have the first hour, if in fact that is needed, and be followed by Mr. Kingsley, who will take up the balance of time if that much time is necessary.

Finally, I'm going to ask for five minutes of committee time at the end to discuss future business.

That just gives you an idea of how I would like to conduct the business of the meeting today.

Without any further ado, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome the Honourable Rob Nicholson. I appreciate your taking the time on such short notice.

As members know, Mr. Nicholson is the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister Responsible for Democratic Reform. He is also, of course, the sponsor of Bill C-16. Minister, I thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to appear before the committee today to discuss Bill C-16. I would like to ask you to start by introducing your team. Then, by all means, go on with your opening statement, and we'll follow that with questions.

Canada Elections Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak here today regarding Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

I would first like to comment on the response given by the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord to the hon. member for Victoria.

The member said that when Quebec left and part of Canada was taken away it would not hurt British Columbia or any part of Canada. I disagree. I refer to the great English parliamentarian, John Donne, who said that when just one clod of earth washed away from the shores of England, when one was lost, it affected the entire country. When we lose one person, for whom does the bell toll? It tolls for thee. Losing any part of Canada would have a great effect on all of Canada. It is a subject of great concern and importance to everyone.

Turning to the bill, most of the discussion so far has been on the philosophical aspects of the bill, but I want to talk about three technical aspects of it. The drafters and departmental officials may want to consider some technical points.

I want to talk about proposed subsection 56.2(1). This refers to changing the fixed election date slightly if there is a provincial or municipal election. The government philosophy that it does not want to conflict with other governments' elections is good. It could be a nightmare if two elections were going on at the same time.

Unfortunately, this section is very flawed, because it refers only to municipal and provincial governments. Canada is not made up simply of provincial and municipal governments. There are four orders of government in Canada and the federal government has neglected two of them: the territorial and the first nations governments. It was only a few parliamentary days ago when we had a vote in the House of Commons and only two of us, the member for Nunavut and I, voted against it because it referred to federal and provincial governments but had left out the territorial governments. Here again the territories have been left out.

If we characterize the current government since the election, it has been a government of omission: who has been left out; who has been left behind. Think about the low income people whose taxes were increased, as mentioned previously. Think about people with disabilities and seniors whose income tax increased from 12% to 12.5%. Global warming is having a dramatic effect on the people in the north while many of the climate change programs have been allowed to expire and are not being renewed. The aboriginal people were also left behind when the greatest agreement in the history of this nation, with funding of $5 billion, was abrogated. It was a good faith agreement and those people were left behind. Single mothers have lost the $5 billion day care program which would have given them some relief, some possibility of getting into the workforce and building new lives for themselves.

We are leaving behind geographically almost half the country: the territorial governments and the first nations governments. I want to talk about first nations governments. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, federal departments, agencies and politicians too often do not realize the new reality in Canada, the great land claims and self-government agreements. I am sure every member in the House is in total agreement with the modernization of dealing with these other governments in Canada. Too often we forget that we have made these arrangements.

When we sign deals with first nations, we have created new governments in Canada that in some cases have more power than a province. These governments have to be legally and morally dealt with on a government to government to government basis. We cannot just omit them when we are talking about governments in this country. We have signed deals that mandate consultation. We have signed agreements that are constitutionally protected in some cases that mandate consultation with these governments. Sometimes people do not understand and they think it is only the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but it is all federal departments and agencies and it is all politicians. We have signed these agreements on behalf of Canada and not on behalf of a single department.

I would certainly be looking for a technical modification to proposed subsection 56.2(1) to include governments that are omitted in the present drafting.

The only other major point I want to make relates to proposed subsection 56.2(4). My colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming made the same point. As I have said earlier, this is in relation to not having elections at the same time.

If Bill C-16 were to come into effect in its present form, the federal election would occur three days before all the municipal elections in my jurisdiction. Any member who has had the unfortunate situation of having two elections going on at the same time knows what a mess it is. When enumerators go door to door, people say that they have already been enumerated. There are signs of all different colours for different elections. The voters do not know which advance poll is for which election. It is absurd to have two elections going on at the same time. If possible, it should be avoided.

The bill will mandate that two elections go on within three days of each other in 2007. Some technical modifications are needed. I know the government is acting in goodwill. The government does not want to pile up elections. This was part of the government's philosophy in bringing forward the bill. Unfortunately, the technical aspects of the bill do not make that possible now.

The bill allows for small changes in timing, but only three days. It could be the day after or a week after, which in effect would only be three days from the election that I am talking about.

We need more flexibility in that section, perhaps a month, so that the Governor General has enough flexibility and that provincial, municipal, first nations or other government elections do not overlap. As the NDP member from Ottawa said earlier, when there are conflicting situations what happens is that the electorate stops showing up. There is already a big enough problem with that. We do not want to create more problems for the electorate which is already having a problem getting enthused with the process.

Proposed subsection 57(4) talks about changing the election day to the Tuesday if the Monday happens to be a holiday. That does not jibe clearly with proposed subsection 56.2(4) which talks about the alternate dates, because it could be the alternate Tuesday or Monday. Technically we must make sure that those two sections work together and that the results are very clear.

In conclusion, there are two major technical flaws with the bill. One is that the bill only talks about two of the four orders of government where the federal election date would be altered. The other is the bill does not have enough flexibility to change the federal election date slightly by a number of weeks, a month or so, in order not to conflict with a provincial, municipal or first nations election.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my honourable and active colleague from the Yukon.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-16, legislation that seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act to bring in fixed election dates at the federal level in Canada. The bill provides, subject to an early dissolution of Parliament, that a general election must be held every four years.

The issue of fixed elections is embraced by many people as a way of addressing some of the perceived cynicism in our political system. Rightly or wrongly, people do believe that what happens here in Ottawa is often out of sync with ordinary Canadians. I think we could all think of circumstances. I will vote for the legislation at second reading so the committee can deliberate and make any changes, particularly as it relates to the issue of confidence and confidence votes.

I was not always a fan of fixed elections. In fact, I can recall when I was the president of the Liberal Party in Nova Scotia, my good friend and former leader, Danny Graham, upon becoming leader, proposed sweeping changes on how the government and the House of Assembly operated. He had a large number of democratic reforms about which he was very passionate, including fixed elections.

As party president at the time, I thought there were more important issues to be addressed and I was not at all enthralled with this idea but, as is usually the case when I look back on it, Danny was right. I have come to believe that fixed elections do have useful elements and are worthy of support. I think they are generally good for government. I think they are generally good for the public service. I think they are generally good for the media who have to cover and portray campaigns at their cost. And I think they are generally good for Canadians.

One of the primary arguments for fixed elections is to remove the unfair advantage that the government has in setting the election date. Does this take politics out of the election dates? I do not think it takes all of the politics out of election dates. It does mean that the government cannot determine in a majority situation that it will have an election early or even go for five years if it wishes. It does determine that the date will be held at a certain point in time, but it certainly will not take the politics out of fixing an election date, nor will it shorten election campaigns. In fact, looking south, I suspect that it will make election campaigns much longer. People are already preparing for the 2008 presidential elections and for senatorial elections two or even three years down the road as well.

However, this fixed election date will mean that a prime minister would no longer have the opportunity to call an election when it is thought to be to her or his advantage. In Nova Scotia, we had a case in the 1980s. Premier and then Senator Buchanan was elected in 1978. He called an election in 1981 and another one in 1984. It was similar to what we had at the federal level through the 1990s.

Fixed elections might also level the playing field for all participants by providing certainty for candidates who are seeking to become members of Parliament. I think that is important.

I recall that when I was seeking election, there were a lot of decisions to be made. There is a lot of planning with one's family and with one's business if one happens to be a business person. There is an awful lot of work that has to be done around identifying when one is going to make the announcement.

In the case of people who may be in business, or partners in business, a position similar to my own, can one in fact be a nominated candidate for a year or perhaps even two years not knowing when the election might be? I think that is worthwhile considering.

We all know the risk involved in running for office. We set aside our lives to run in the hopes of winning. Many who have jobs without protection must, in a relatively short period of time, make significant changes in their lives to run for office, so I think fixed elections will allow individuals the opportunity to plan effectively to run for public office.

Those are positive elements and, as I say, I look forward to supporting the legislation and bringing it to committee. It is my hope that when it comes back I can vote for it again.

There are, however, some questions that I think need to be addressed, not the least of which is the issue of what constitutes confidence and what parameters might exist that would not allow a government the opportunity to circumvent the legislation for its electoral advantage.

For example, we would want to avoid any situation whereby an election is called, or orchestrating an election, let us say hypothetically next spring or even this fall, perhaps after the introduction of a budget before it has been debated, or triggering an election before bad news arrives. For example, maybe the government has some indication of pending release of documents suggesting there might be some ill-conceived action that has taken place.

I think we need clarity as to what constitutes confidence and what parameters would exist in that regard. Could the softwood lumber vote today be an issue of confidence? Could the gun registry vote be an issue of confidence? I think these are some important constitutional issues that need to be addressed.

Our Constitution does not contain many provisions regarding elections. Section 50 tells us that the House of Commons shall continue for up to five years. Section 4 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms suggests that:

No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members.

In any event, I will support this bill in the initial stages, and I hope in the later stages, in the hope that the committee will spend as much time as possible in ensuring the bill makes sense and answers some of the questions proposed here and yesterday in debate in this House.

I must address another issue tied into public confidence, and occasionally public cynicism, about what happens here and how we conduct ourselves in Parliament.

Perhaps the real issue is not who calls an election or when, but how parliamentarians treat each other and the institutions of Parliament, such as, for example, question period. Question period is the time when most Canadians see us in the House of Commons. Debate clips do not usually get on TV, but question period does. During this 45 minute period, accusations are made, although the accusations seem to me to be more reasonable this year than last year, and reputations are sometimes ruined. We see false outrage and packaged answers. We wonder why people might think their elected representatives do not connect sometimes.

So is the issue of cynicism in politics solved by the introduction of fixed elections or by an overhaul of how we treat each other in this chamber? Why is it that colleagues from all sides can speak well to each other outside the chamber and enjoy a drink or dinner together, but when the cameras are on we cannot resist the temptation to replace debate with feigned outrage?

It is one thing to reform our election process, and I support that, but I hope all members would also reflect on issues related to our level of discourse in this chamber. I do not suggest that there are any angels among us. We all share that responsibility. We should all do better.

Nonetheless, I will support this bill, and I hope to support it when it comes back. We need more certainty about what constitutes confidence, about what determines when an election is called. The advantage of this bill for Canadians is that it would provide some certainty. It is important that we define certainty before we pass this bill. I will support it going to committee. I hope some changes are made. I hope very much to support it when it comes back.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentions that he spent 12 years in municipal politics. He knows that the difference between fixed election dates in the municipal world and under this legislation is that the mayor, for example, cannot at his discretion decide to dissolve the council and call an election. If it is a fixed election date, it is a fixed election date both in terms of principle and in reality. Under this legislation, we would have a fixed election date, but still have the ability of government to have discretionary power to call an election any time it sees fit.

Would the member or his party be prepared to look at specific amendments to reduce that discretionary power, for example, only on money matters, money bills or the Speech from the Throne? A government could come along and say it promised 15 things in the last election and has deemed each and every one of those 15 as confidence matters. Therefore, notwithstanding that we have a fixed election date four years or three years from now, it is going to deem this a confidence matter and if it loses of course it would go to an election.

What type of amendments would the member's party be prepared to look at to deal with this issue which at the moment seems to be the great flaw in Bill C-16?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in theory, fixed election dates are very good. However, Bill C-16 has not taken into consideration what constitutes confidence. If we look at the general history we know that confidence motions are on the Speech from the Throne or a finance bill. Within the current environment, the Prime Minister, whenever it does not suit him, calls everything confidence. How does the bill help in ensuring the Prime Minister will not use that power and not create more cynicism among voters to call a snap election?

The bill is also a mishmash with the U.S. congressional model. Could you give me your thoughts on how we could improve on accountability?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-16.

I chose to run for political office, as many here did, to make a difference. I believe we were sent here by our constituents to improve the state of the nation.

One of the areas where our nation definitely needs improvement is the structure and the function of our democracy. Before the last election, our party put forward a seven point plan to clean up and improve the state of our democracy. A friend of mine and a colleague of many who are here, Mr. Broadbent, proposed the seven point plan to clean up and put in the hands of Canadians some ideas that we could then bring to this place to improve the state of our nation and, indeed, the state and health of our democracy.

I want to go over those points. We know that with the accountability act the government quite smartly and rightly took some of our ideas and brought them forward. We certainly contributed to the committee on Bill C-2 in which the member for Winnipeg Centre and I proposed, as opposed to just opposing, ideas. We proposed some of the ideas that we had put forward in our plan, which was available to Canadians not only during the election but before the election.

To summarize the seven point plan, the first was to have democratic accountability in the House. We proposed that no member of Parliament could ignore his or her voters and wheel and deal for personal gain. No member of Parliament should be permitted to ignore the wishes of their voters and change parties. This was before the interesting musical chairs by the member for Vancouver Kingsway. We wanted to ensure that the wishes of voters were honoured. To cross the floor and become a member of another party, without first resigning his or her seat and running in a byelection, was not on.

Democracy is something that is evolving. It is an experiment of sorts and it is something where we know that when voters are not honoured, they do one of two things. Fist, they just walk away from the process, and no one wants to see that happen. Sadly, we have seen that happen over time. Second, they propose to change things.

The first thing we wanted to do in our seven point ethics packages was to ban floor-crossing. We saw that it dishonoured the wishes of voters.

The second point of our seven point plan was that election dates should be fixed, which is the spirit in the proposition the government has put before the House in Bill C-16. There are many reasons for that, which I will explain in a minute.

Point three, which we proposed before the last election, was to set spending limits in leadership contests. We saw in the previous Liberal Party leadership contest the contestant, who then became the prime minister, had over $12 million in the bank. Obviously, there was not much competition in the end, but he had lots of money. We had concerns at the time about the amount of money in leadership contests, and it was not just with the Liberal Party. Parties are largely financed by the public and the same principles pertinent to the public good should play to the internal affairs of parties as they do to electoral competition between parties.

Point four was electoral reform. This has been a demand, a suggestion, a proposition that was made probably before I was born. An organization of Canadians from coast to coast has been brought together from all parties. It has decided to focus on electoral reform, which obviously needs fixing.

Many people have suggested we look to the other healthy democracies that have proportional representation, that the will and the spirit of the voters is represented in legislative bodies. This clearly has not happened in the last number of elections. We need a process and we need to ensure that we get on with that process.

Fair Vote Canada, the organization to which I referred, has been tireless in advocating for fair elections so voters are not cheated, which has happened. It is not about parties. We know we have had majority governments that are false majorities, governments that are based on 38% and 39% of the vote. That is clearly wrong, it is undemocratic and it should be changed.

Point five was that unregulated lobbying and political cronyism must end. We have started on that path with some amendments we made on Bill C-2. We have to change government appointments so they are not patronage appointments. We have made some changes, but there is work to be done.

Point seven was access to information. Clearly, that is the window on democracy. It is a bit clouded now. We are working on that and there is more to come.

Now let me turn to the bill before us. The reason why we put forward fixed election dates long before others were talking about it in this place was because we saw the concerns that people had with the executive power, which has been concentrated over time, in the hands of the Prime Minister's Office. Some put it back to just after Pearson. We saw this lead to the deepening of cynicism among the voters of Canada. We had a previous government call a snap election when it was clear that the opposition at the time was not coalesced or organized. Why? Because it could win the election.

As was mentioned, governments sometimes go on too long. We remember the previous Conservative government, which waited until 1993 to finally let Canadians have their say. We could see a government call a snap election to get power or a government that hangs on to long. We see the benefit of having fixed election dates, but there are many other reasons, if we look to the people who have studied it.

I refer to Henry Milner, who is an author, visiting scholar and professor of political science at Laval University. He has studied this, and I consider this an objective opinion. He is one of the people we tapped into taking a look at fixed election dates. He showed that Canada is only 1 out of 12 of 40 comparable democracies that does not use some form of fixed election dates. Clearly, when we look at the juxtaposition between our democracy and others, it is worth examining, and he did that. He also said that these numbers contradicted the widely held misperception that flexible election dates were incompatible with parliamentary systems, as some have suggested.

I will turn to concerns with the fact that there have not been constitutional changes proposed in the bill. In effect, a prime minister can walk down the street and still call for an election. My colleague has made a proposal. In committee we will look at proposing ways to ensure that there are criteria on what is a confidence vote.

Most parliamentary democracies in Scandinavia and continental Europe, including several Westminster style systems, have what is called a flexible fix. In other words people would have concerns if there were a loss of confidence and the government should fall and set criteria accordingly. That is really what we are talking about: not fixed election dates, but nuance. It is a flexible fix so if there is a minority Parliament and the government loses the confidence of the House, there is an opportunity to go to the people, and that will not change. Therefore, we have fixed election dates when it is opportune.

Like many others, I am concerned that the present government is simply trying to engineer, between policy and brokerage politics, the fall of the House so it can then gain a majority. I actually think that with this debate and this bill in front of us people will become wise to that kind of backroom politicking. Not only with fixed election dates would we avoid the cynical use of power within the Prime Minister's Office, as we saw with previous governments, but the public would be aware of a fixed election date in October and would then question the government if it were orchestrating the fall of the House. The government would need to make that political argument. Is it playing brokerage politics simply to have the House fall so that it could gain a majority government? I see that as an important debate to have.

By adopting a precise date, preferably early in the fall as has been suggested, it would allow a campaign to take place at the end of the traditional vacation period in Canada. We also must take rural Canada into account. If we were to have an election too early in the fall it would affect farmers. Farmers, goodness knows, have had enough challenges and they do not need another one in front of them.

Although many of us had a terrific time going door to door in the last election and found it very invigorating ploughing through the snow, many of us, and probably most Canadians, would rather that be a footnote in history and not a practice to embrace.

If we were to build in provisions for holding early elections when necessary and in such an event stipulate that the following election would occur on the designated date four calendar years later, I believe Canadians would embrace that and it would help fix democracy.

I want to conclude by emphasizing the fact that this is something the NDP proposed before the election and it is something we embrace. We have some concerns but they can be dealt with in committee. We fully support fixed election dates.

I would like to leave the House and Canadians with the fact that this is not the end of electoral reform and democratic reform. Canadians are demanding that we fix our democracy, that we embrace the idea of democratic reform and that we embrace the idea of proportional representation. Canadians would then have genuine confidence in democracy. This is the beginning, definitely not the end. I look forward to engaging in debate with my colleagues.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, saying it does not make it so.

I support the principle of fixed election dates, however the hon. member has said that snap election dates are out and that a government cannot manipulate the process. There is absolutely nothing in the legislation that prevents the government or any future government from manipulating the process. It does not define what votes of confidence are.

Later today we are going to have a vote on the softwood lumber deal. The government, which just the other day and over the summer, said that if in the vote did not go its way, it would be a vote of confidence, the government would fall and we would have an election. At the same time it has Bill C-16 before the House. To me, that is inconsistent and indeed almost hypocritical to suggest on the one hand that we are bringing in fixed election dates, but still not dealing with the process.

How does the legislation prevent the government from manipulating election dates when in fact it is silent on it?

Unless there is an amendment, which clearly defines what votes of confidence would be, we will be subject to future manipulation by the government. I suggest that the real target is to tell the public to feel good, that we will have a fixed election date in four years, when the reality is get ready, we will have one either later this year or early next.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but note that the member has no real questions with respect to the legislation. She has moved on to other topics of reform that perhaps the House should consider, but I would like to address Bill C-16, the one focused on fixed election dates, and simply highlight some of the other benefits that I did not get a chance to address in my speech.

In summary, there are four clear benefits from the legislation.

It provides fairness. No longer will the governing party be allowed to manipulate the process.

It provides transparency and predictability. Canadians will benefit from knowing exactly when these fixed elections will occur so they can plan their lives and the businesses around it.

It improves governance by removing power from the prime minister's office and devolving it to the people, as it should be.

Hopefully, it will result in a higher voter turnout. The date in October was chosen particularly to avoid conflicts with municipal elections and religious holidays, such that the voter turnout should be higher if we adopt this legislation.

I encourage all members in this chamber to support Bill C-16.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in rising to speak to Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act. The bill would fix federal elections for the same day every four years.

The bill is the fulfillment of yet another election promise on the part of this Conservative government. In our election platform we stated we would:

--introduce legislation modelled on the BC and Ontario laws requiring fixed election dates every four years, except when a government loses the confidence of the House (in which case an election would be held immediately, and the subsequent election would follow four years later).

That is exactly what the bill does. By now, the opposition, the media and the voting public are starting to understand that the promises we made during the last election are promises we intend to keep. They watched us fulfill our campaign promises to cut the GST, deliver truly universal child care benefits, present criminal justice reform and pass the accountability act. They will see many more commitments from our platform fulfilled this fall.

This particular bill, though relatively modest in scope, is significant for what it represents. It signifies this government's strong commitment to an ordered and measured reform of our democratic system of governance. The 19th century model of government our fathers of Confederation founded our nation upon has served us for nearly 140 years. Yet, in recent decades, we have seen a tendency of our current system for power to become consolidated at the centre. Provincial powers have become subsumed into the federal power and the power of Parliament has become subsumed into the Prime Minister's Office.

This concentration of power at the centre has had serious consequences in many areas of Canadian life. For instance, we have seen the rise of regional alienation and even the formation of various separatist movements. A chief complaint they level is that Canada is not working. I disagree with those separatist sentiments, but it is a fair criticism to make that Canadian democracy does not work as well as it could.

That is what we will begin to correct with basic democratic reforms such as fixed election dates. With these reforms we will begin to move from a 19th century toward a 21st century system of democracy that better serves the needs and aspirations of our many provinces, our much larger population and our modern society.

After nearly 140 years of Confederation we have seen little democratic reform up until now. We have long heard promises of democratic reforms from other parties including the previous Liberal government. We saw reports commissioned. We saw ministers of democratic reform appointed under the Liberals. The previous Liberal minister of democratic reform said just last year:

Our political structures and institutions need renewal. Canadians are crying for political stability. Only in this way can we direct the focus of government once again to growing a competitive economy that safeguards our quality of life.

We agree with that statement, but we will take action and not just talk about it. Yet, it is this new Conservative government that has delivered during the first months of office.

As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I am particularly proud to be speaking in support of fixed election dates. My province has long been the leader in the area of democratic reform and was the first province to implement fixed election dates in 2001.

British Columbia made history when we had our first provincial election with a fixed election date of May 17, 2005. I believe it is no mistake that B.C. in particular has become a driving force behind our democratic reform in Canada. Indeed, B.C. is literally the furthest from the centre of political power in Canada; three time zones away, with high mountains and vast prairies between us and Ottawa.

Yet, despite the distance and the political alienation that many sometimes feel, British Columbians have always taken the constructive approach. Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater by choosing separatism, we have asked ourselves what needs to be done to fix these problems.

British Columbians strongly believe that our system of government can be renewed and reformed. We have worked hard in recent years to make that a reality. We have legislation to allow for the election of senators to represent B.C.

We have recently undertaken a process called a citizen's assembly to examine the question of proportional representation and we held a province-wide referendum on that proposal. We have passed recall legislation. We have successfully implemented fixed election dates.

Fixing the election date levelled the playing field for everyone in B.C. Voters knew when the election was coming and had plenty of time to gather information, discuss the issues and formulate their decisions. Every party was able to plan accordingly. Parties could find candidates and those candidates could plan their lives around the known dates of the campaign. Candidates and parties could plan their fundraising. The governing party lost a real advantage, but this reform worked and democracy in B.C. has ultimately strengthened.

As with the reforms in B.C., we now see Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador adopting similar methods that are proposed here in Bill C-16. Federal election dates would no longer be chosen with the advantage they may provide to the governing party. Every party would have the same opportunities.

The reverse is also true. Not only are snap elections out, no longer will governments that have passed their “best before” date and face certain defeat at the polls be able to drag out their terms simply for the purpose of remaining in power as long as possible.

The disastrous Ontario administration of would-be Liberal leader Bob Rae comes to mind as a prime example. His unpopular government clung to power for 57 months out of the 60 possible maximum.

Setting the dates of future elections in law would also have a noticeable benefit for the Canadian economy. As a trading nation with borders that are open to the flow of goods and capital, Canada's economy prospers when investors enjoy stability. Knowing the date of an election enhances the ability of businesses to engage in longer term planning. We also avoid the potential for large fluctuations in our currency due to speculation, which can harm our export based economy.

Returning to the example of a government that has overstayed its welcome and is intent on grasping power for a full five years, the four year election cycle would give voters the opportunity to judge a government on its economic performance sooner.

The disastrous Bob Rae government in Ontario, which ground the economy to a literal standstill on its infamous “Rae days” could have been tossed out nearly a year earlier. Ontario might have avoided that final year of high taxes, huge deficits, high unemployment and record welfare rolls.

A date fixed in October would also steer clear of many of the shortcomings of the recent federal election that straddled Christmas and New Year's. The October date would avoid interfering with most of the religious holidays and observances of Canadians. It would also avoid the summer and winter seasons, when many Canadian may be away from their homes and communities for extended periods.

My riding of South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale has one of the highest populations of seniors in the nation. A large number of these seniors head to warmer climes in the winter months, for reasons of health and recreation. An October vote would allow my constituents to discharge their civic responsibilities without interference to their vacation plans. As such, making it easier to participate in an election with a fixed date in October should encourage a higher voter turnout; and the higher the participation rate, the healthier our democracy.

Our democratic reforms do not end with fixed election dates. These are only the first steps. We promised a series of substantive reforms during the recent election.

Among these, we promised to begin reform of the Upper House by creating a national process for choosing elected members for that House from each province and territory. We proposed further reforms to make the Upper House an effective, independent and democratically elected body that would equitably represent all regions.

We committed to restore representation by population for Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta in the House of Commons while protecting the seat counts of smaller provinces.

We committed to making all votes in Parliament, except the budget and main estimates, free votes for ordinary members of Parliament and to increasing the power of Parliament and parliamentary committees to review the spending estimates of departments and to hold ministers to account.

Members will know that a modest step toward reform of the other place has begun with a bill to limit the terms of new members of the other place to eight years. Members will also know that we have opened up the process by which our Supreme Court justices are chosen so that Parliament would be allowed to question and consider potential appointees.

In conclusion, I encourage all members to support this modest yet important reform proposed in Bill C-16.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to split my time with my hon. colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale.

It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on Bill C-16, which would establish fixed election dates for the third Monday of October every fourth year. The bill continues the Conservative government's commitment to provide accountability and transparency in our Canadian democracy.

There is no perfect day for an election. There are, however, better days than others, as everyone in the House knows. I commend all the volunteers in the last election who had the unfortunate job of trying to hammer--or should I say jackhammer?--signs into the ground and who door-knocked with chilling winds and snowy days.

Of special importance to my riding of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar is that October 19, in good years, allows farmers to finish their harvests. Agribusinesses and the people employed in those businesses could become involved in the election process. During the harvest, the agricultural sector barely has time to sleep, let alone participate in or even think about politics. Bill C-19 would ensure that they are able to fully participate in elections.

Senior citizens would also not have to brave the cold weather to exercise their democratic rights. I have heard from many of my senior constituents about the difficulty of making the trek to the polls in freezing temperatures that can reach -30°C. The ice is another danger best avoided when possible, as it seriously hampers their ability to participate in Canada's democracy.

The third Monday of October allows our youth to get settled in the school year. Students could hold candidate debates so they could actively participate and become aware of the issues. As we all know, youth voter participation is at an all time low, with only an estimated 35% of 21 year olds to 24 year olds voting. The most cited reason for this lack of participation is cynicism of the political process. This cynicism extends further than youth, with manipulation of election dates increasing voter apathy.

A poll in 2004 by the Environics Research Group found that 81% of people supported having elections at fixed times. The government listened and now we are acting. By removing the politics from calling elections we are restoring trust in Canadian democracy. No longer will election dates be manipulated by politicians behind closed doors. Combined with the federal accountability act, we are responding to the concerns of our youth and all Canadians by doing politics differently.

The bill makes elections predictable but also makes room for flexibility. In the case of the election falling on a religious holiday or near an important provincial or municipal election, the date can be moved up to seven days following the set polling date.

With the passage of Bill C-16, elections will become predictable and stable while still keeping governments accountable. B.C. and Ontario, under Liberal governments, have both adopted fixed dates for elections, with other provinces considering doing the same. These governments remain accountable because they still allow for votes of non-confidence.

Bill C-16 would allow the government to be voted out in a vote of non-confidence. In this way, the Governor General retains her powers to dissolve Parliament. The bill explicitly states:

Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion.

There have been no constitutional or legal problems for either B.C. or Ontario with their election dates and there will not be for the federal government.

We are providing predictability while still working with the traditions of parliamentary democracy. This bill is truly the best of both worlds. It would also allow for provincial governments to plan their elections around federal elections. They could plan to hold them closer or further away from federal elections based on their preferences. One thing is clear, though, and that is that it would make election planning a more rational and easy to follow process. People could plan in advance to get involved in the political process knowing exactly when the next election would be called.

This bill will increase voter turnout by giving more access to our electoral system. Predictable elections will also reduce waste in government machinery and give Canadians value for their money. Elections Canada has to be in a constant state of readiness, which forces it to keep a high level of staffing. This is very costly. In the case of a majority, Elections Canada knows when to expect an election and can plan accordingly. This bill will substantially reduce the cost of holding elections in the future.

Political parties, individual candidates and staff will also be able to plan better. Staff members may be able to join a hockey league knowing that they will not have to leave it midway through to participate in an election. Candidates can plan their election strategies knowing precisely when they will start campaigning. Government departments can plan their agendas more effectively. Instability and uncertainty means that departments have to hold off on projects because they are unsure who will be in power. Committees will be able to plan policy in advance, making it a more focused and efficient system.

Predictability has many political rewards for government and allows us to do our jobs better. In the current system, the governing party has an unfair advantage over opposition parties with the ability to call elections when that suits its purpose. We have seen this done in the past by federal and provincial governments and parties of all stripes. Governments can call elections to coincide with upturns in the economy after large capital projects have been completed or if they are doing well in the polls. This is clearly an unfair advantage for the governing party. Levelling the playing field is an important aspect of democratic government.

People in my riding often come up to me and say that they do not feel the democratic process is working for them any more. Instead, they say, it is working in the interests of those in power and their friends. With this bill, election dates will no longer be set to benefit the ruling party but set to benefit the people.

We must continue the process of restoring trust in our democratic institutions by making them independent of internal party politics. Parliament has been developing a non-partisan electoral system for the past 100 years. Electoral boundaries are drawn by independent commissions and elections are administered by Elections Canada. The date of elections, though, continues to be in the hands of politicians.

In conclusion, let us finish the process by taking politics out of electoral date setting. Let us restore trust in Canadian democracy.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday in the House, I, as well as the member, am concerned about the fact that the Prime Minister has stated on many occasions that he is prepared to call a vote on confidence on quite a few matters, in some ways even threatening Parliament to defeat the government on a bill so that he could go before the electorate.

I find this type of behaviour undermines the very essence of what we are trying to accomplish with Bill C-16. If the Prime Minister really is serious about a fixed date election and about making sure this bill is workable and has wide support from all of us in the House, then the Prime Minister must, I believe, stop this tactic of constantly threatening an election every time the polls seem to go up for the Prime Minister. I share my colleague's sentiment.

As for the second part of her question on the NDP amendment, I have not seen it but I certainly am interested in looking at it, because we should do anything we can to in fact tighten that prerogative, as it might be called, to call an election on any whim and waste $300 million of taxpayers' money. Canadians should not be having elections every year, as seems to have been the case in the last two minority parliaments. We should do whatever we can to make sure that we are taking good care of taxpayers' money and we should not call an election whenever we deem it should be the case. I am interested in looking at the amendment and welcome the opportunity to do so.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the House to Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act. The intent of the bill is to attempt to establish fixed election dates at the federal level of government in Canada.

Allow me at the outset to clearly state that I am very much in favour of the principle of fixed election dates and view the implementation of such an amendment as a major step forward for Canada's parliamentary system. Having indicated my support for this principle, I must, however, note that the bill certainly falls short of its stated goal.

Although it refers to fixed election dates, a more accurate description would be the most probable election dates.

As members here have noted during the debate, the role of the Governor General and the attendant royal prerogative remain in place.

Therefore, the bill would designate a date in October four years away as the date of the next election but , within our parliamentary system, a government can fall on matters of confidence, particularly financial issues, and this would invalidate the so-called fixed election date for that particular Parliament.

The passage of Bill C-16 is, however, a significant change to our electoral system and one that is long overdue.

We are currently in the midst of our second minority Parliament. While many will argue that minority governments tend to be more accountable to voters due to their vulnerability, there is clearly a significant element of political instability that exists during these mandates.

However, it is important to note that in our parliamentary system, in its current manifestation, this uncertainty is always present to some degree, regardless of whether it is a minority or a majority government.

Any sitting prime minister has significant powers of persuasion over members of the government and Parliament itself, not least of which is the ability to ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and call a general election. This certainly affords the prime minister considerable leverage but, in many respects, removes from elected members of Parliament the freedom that is in the best interests of voters, their country and our democratic system of government.

In establishing fixed election dates, the ability of the prime minister to call an election at will would be severely curtailed, at least in principle. Outside of the defeat of the government on a treasury bill, it would have to be a very sound matter of confidence that would see a government risk the political implications of ending a mandate prior to the fixed election date.

The parliamentary tradition of an election call following the defeat of a government treasury bill would remain in place but this would be the only practical condition beyond reproach that would warrant a premature dissolution of Parliament. On matters of policy outside the realm of fiscal issues, it would be more likely than at present for a Parliament to continue, even if a government measure were to be defeated.

The practice of designating bills as confidence matters is quite simply a means of exerting influence over government members and even opposition parties fearful of a general election It is rarely the case that the integrity or validity of a government actually rests with the passage of these so-called non-treasury confidence matters.

Once again, I believe members would be better placed to serve their constituents more effectively if they could avoid the constant threat of a general election simply because a matter is deemed to be a confidence issue. In other words, there would be a greater sincerity in trying to make Parliament work without the automatic move to a general election.

I suggest this, not only for reasons of political stability but for freer expression by members of Parliament and to facilitate more effective representation.

We all realize that general elections are extremely expensive and it is particularly dismaying and wasteful that they can occur without a truly justifiable reason. How many of us, along with our fellow Canadians, abhor the traditional spending spree that has accompanied the period just before a government decides that the time is right for a general election?

Whether true or not, the point is that public money should not be used to attempt to influence voting practices. These practices are wasteful and not sound public policy. It is difficult for political parties in power to resist the temptation to pursue these strategic spending initiatives all the while denying what is often the obvious reality of a pre-writ period.

The reality of fixed election dates would make it much more difficult in terms of political realities for governments to embark on pre-writ spending sprees. The fact that a specific election date is fast approaching would lay waste to any denials associated with the motivation for these kinds of announcements.

Similarly, in implementing fixed election dates we would be effectively ending the practice of allowing parties in power, or even opposition parties in a minority Parliament, to simply choose the best time politically for their members to face the electorate.

Often the timing that best suits a political party may not be the most conducive for voters. The last general election was a campaign that took place over the holiday season with an election day in the midst of the coldest month of the year. Although this election was one that resulted from the defeat of the government on a treasury issue, the timing was certainly not popular.

Once again, fixed election dates would eliminate the ability of elections being called for reasons of political expediency at times which serve the interests of a political party. Having elections take place in the third week of October recognizes the reality of Canada's climate and the challenges that other times create for both candidates and voters.

October elections are also much more realistic in terms of practical considerations associated with voters' calendars. Most people are back at work and school and few are on vacation. This would be most beneficial in terms of encouraging voter turnout as people are available to exercise their franchise.

Similarly, fixed election dates would encourage the candidacies of many more Canadians who would otherwise be reticent to seek elected office due to issues like their current employment situations and the realities of family life. Knowing when an election is going to take place removes this uncertainty and would allow for concrete planning to take place.

The benefits of fixed election dates are recognized by most of the traditional developed democracies. In fact, studies indicate that 75% of these countries now operate on fixed election dates.

There are those who will argue that fixed election dates undermine the traditions of our parliamentary system. I would suggest that our parliamentary system is one that needs to evolve and one that is strong enough to undergo these changes.

Many parliamentary systems are based on the British system as is ours. If we look to the situation in the United Kingdom, there are many changes that have taken place and many that are under consideration. In fact, the devolved Parliaments of Scotland and Wales operate with fixed election dates.

I would suggest that this is the first step on the path of democratic renewal. By allowing for greater political stability, more effective representation and less politically expedient elections, we will be helping to restore the confidence of Canadians in our democratic institutions. Indeed, this is what I would call a significant first step in the process of democratic renewal.

The province of British Columbia has spent considerable time attempting to pursue democratic renewal and in fact led the way recently with its first fixed election date campaign. It is time for the federal government to do so as well.

The bill is only the beginning of the process of democratic reform. By taking this step, we are signalling to Canadians that we are serious about democratic renewal. I would maintain that this first step is but part of a process that will encourage Canadians to become involved in democratic renewal aimed at restoring public confidence in our political institutions and encouraging greater involvement by voters in the conduct of the federal government.

I encourage all members to join with me in supporting Bill C-16 and in continuing the process of democratic renewal in this country.

The House resumed from September 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will move on to the business at hand which is the second reading of Bill C-16.

I support the idea of fixed election dates but I am not happy with the way the government has gone about bringing in the legislation and certain parts of it concern me.

I am confident that with further study and amendments at committee fixed election dates can be achieved in a fashion that is sound and well thought out. After all, no reform should ever be taken lightly, especially when our system of government has worked so hard and well, all things considered, since before 1867.

The Westminster system of government that we inherited from the United Kingdom dates back hundreds of years. It is a remarkable system of government in that it has adapted itself to changing times. This system has also adapted itself to a number of countries, such as Singapore, Malta, India and Jamaica. We have a strong system of government that is innovative and flexible. Fixed election dates are yet another reform that is coming along and that, if implemented correctly, can only serve to make our system stronger.

I will speak to why I support the idea of fixed election dates and then I will raise my concerns with the government's course of action on this file.

Canadian history was made on May 17, 2005, when British Columbia had the first election date set in law.

In December 2005, the McGuinty government in Ontario passed a bill that set fixed election dates for Ontario. This means that the next election in Ontario will be on October 4, my birthday, 2007, and subsequent elections will be held on the first Thursday of October every four years.

Other provinces, such as Quebec, Manitoba and New Brunswick, have considered fixed dates as well.

This is not a novel move at all. We tend to take fixed election dates at the municipal level for granted. Why should things be any different at the provincial or federal level? There has been a movement toward reforming assemblies that use the Westminster system of government.

When the British Parliament created new assemblies in Scotland and Wales in 1998, the acts proclaimed that elections were to take place on the first Thursday in May every four years.

In 2005, the New Zealand prime minister, Helen Clark, voiced support for fixed election dates in that country. It is time that we consider such a move here in Canada.

On balance, the fairness and administrative efficiency of fixed elections outweighs the added cost due to potentially longer campaigns. With the financing laws and third party advertisement laws we have in Canada, the nightmare scenario of a four year election campaign should be avoided.

Fixed election dates can actually be more efficient in that since everyone knows when the election is coming there may be more cooperation to get bills passed in Parliament. Bills that enjoy the support of most parties in the House may be prioritized and there may be agreement to extend sitting hours to get bills of common interest passed. I think here of the animal cruelty legislation that has been constantly removed from the order papers for the past few Parliaments.

There have been examples in Canadian history when everyone thought there would be an election but one turned out not to be called at all. Party workers prepared signs, pamphlets and databases and then all of a sudden there was no election.

This would be a waste of resources in that all the campaign material would need to be updated at a later date. There has to be a leaner, more efficient way.

Moreover, the duration of the formal campaign could be shortened under the fixed election date system since the work of the electoral office could begin before the election was called. This could save money and result in better planning all around. Similarly, unnecessary byelections could be avoided.

There have been examples in Canadian politics where election campaigns have been underway when a writ was dropped for a national election. Also, there have been examples of byelections held just before the writ was dropped for a national vote. In both cases there was an inefficient use of resources, both financial and human. This sort of waste and inefficiency could be avoided if the date of the national election were known and a determination could be made on whether a byelection is necessary or it could wait until the national election.

There are examples in Canadian history of premiers and prime ministers trying to avoid the electorate by waiting five years before having an election called. The playing field must be level so all may participate fairly.

Another reason to consider a fixed election date is for convenience. I do not think anyone in the House wants to go through another winter campaign any time soon. With the fixed date, everyone is on the same page and, with an election date fixed at a convenient time of the year, headaches could be avoided.

While there were no serious glitches in the 2006 election other than the outcome, this does not mean that a winter date does not cause headaches and inconveniences for senior citizens, those with disabilities and the snowbirds.

A number of my constituents, both men and women, have raised concerns about the lack of representation of women in the House of Commons. In January's election, only 64 women were elected, which is actually one fewer than in the 2004 election. A number of ways exist to address this but one way is to ensure adequate child care spaces so that women are more able to pursue a career in a field such as politics. We all know the government's record on child care. Its child care initiative has proven to be a poorly thought out plan but I will discuss that a bit more in a few minutes.

Another way to improve the representation of women in the House might be through fixed election dates. If women were able to know ahead of time the date of the election they could better prepare, plan and make all necessary arrangements. It is certainly something worth considering. The same approach might also encourage more ethnic minorities and new Canadians to run for Parliament.

I have spent the last few minutes discussing why I support fixed election dates. As a result, I support sending the bill to committee where members will be able to analyze it, debate and discuss it.

The bill could be improved in a number of areas so that it could truly accomplish fixed election dates. First, I cannot help but think that the bill was introduced in a hasty and rushed fashion. We have Bill C-16 before us but the Prime Minister also has proposals for Senate reform.

The Prime Minister should know that the functioning of Canada's Parliament has not changed much since 1867.

Reform in this country can be slow and rather than take this sloppy, misguided and unfocused approach to parliamentary reform, he should better focus his proposals. I support reform. Fixed election dates is an example, but only if it is carried out in a responsible manner. This ensures that the reforms can be well implemented and bring forth results.

Bill C-16 was introduced on May 30, less than two months after the opening of Parliament. I wish the government would have truly considered fixed election dates, then we might have a better bill than we have here today.

In the bill, the prime minister still retains the ability to advise the Governor General to dissolve Parliament at any time he believes he has lost the confidence of the House. This is understandable if the vote he has lost is a true confidence one, but what if the bill is only one that the government deemed to be a vote of confidence? This sort of confidence out of convenience could defeat fears of fixed election. I am apprehensive that an over-zealous prime minister could purposefully lose a vote; deem it one of confidence, even if it is not, and then have an election called. This is one example of how the bill was introduced in a sloppy fashion.

I am confident that with the hard work of the official opposition, the bill can be made into a good one that will serve the purpose and bring Canadians fixed election dates. However, the way the government has proceeded with the bill is indicative of how it has handled most of its files since taking office.

The government has boasted that it has worked hard on a handful of priorities, but in reality it has only left a trail of disillusionment and deception. The GST cut is a prime example. It came into effect as promised on July 1, but Canadians also noticed an increase in their income tax as of that date. The government gave with one hand and took even more with the other, especially for low and middle income Canadians. Cuts to sales taxes are not the best kinds of tax cuts to introduce as they do nothing to encourage people to enter the workforce or to invest more money from their paycheques. The GST cut only benefited wealthy Canadians to spend more money on consumer goods.

Of course, child care, as I mentioned before, is a file that the government has not handled well at all. It is with great glee that the Prime Minister cancelled signed child care agreements. The Conservatives have eliminated the national child care program and distributed monetary gifts. In so doing, it fails to build more social policies that will benefit Canadians for generations to come. Moreover, the payment to parents is taxable, so families are not even receiving the full amount they were promised. Again, bad policy was carried out in a hasty and sloppy fashion.

What about the health care guarantee? Where is that? How does the Prime Minister plan to accomplish his wait times guarantee? How will he improve health care for Canadians? Unfortunately, the government has once against introduced government policy on the fly, out of pure politics.

Bill C-16 is yet another hastily drawn piece of legislation. I support fixed election dates, but it needs to be worked at in committee to truly bring democratic change to this institution and to help us realize fixed election dates.

Some of the members across have mentioned that I had a different speech. Yes, I wanted to speak about my riding a bit more and talk about Oak Ridges—Markham, what we are doing there and what I am hearing from people on fixed election dates.

This was not something that was drawn up by the Conservative Party. This legislation has been in front of us a number of times in the House in private members' bills. I was also thinking of putting a bill forward at the beginning of the year, but I had other priorities in my riding such as rural mail delivery, which was ceased by the current government.

When I spoke with my constituents about a fixed date for elections, I was torn between the two bills. My constituents convinced me that rural mail delivery was more important. Since the current Prime Minister had put this forth as a private members' bill in the previous Parliament, I knew that it would come up one way or another. I wanted to ensure that I commented on that in my speech.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I beg to ask the hon. member to take relevance into account. We are talking about Bill C-16 which is about fixed election dates not about seminars on how to work with the Government of Canada in the hon. member's constituency. When he asked me for permission at the outset I did not know what he was talking about, but in my opinion he is clearly not speaking to the bill and I would ask you to do so.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act. The bill would institute fixed election dates for Canadians. This is an item that has interested me for a long time and I am looking forward to sharing my thoughts on the bill with the House.

However, before I do that, I hope I will be allowed to mention a couple of other activities that I have been involved in that are worth sharing with the House.

First, I want to acknowledge my constituents in the riding of Oak Ridges—Markham. I attended a number of events during the summer in every corner of the riding and it is always a pleasure to meet and talk with my constituents.

On October 11 in Oak Ridges—Markham, Public Works and Government Services Canada will be giving a seminar presentation on how to do business with the Government of Canada. This seminar presentation--

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this important piece of legislation. I want to thank the member for Prince George—Peace River for giving me the opportunity to do so by sharing his time with me.

On May 30, 2006 the hon. member for Niagara Falls introduced in the House of Commons Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, providing for fixed election dates every four years. I know how hard the member for Niagara Falls works as he is in the riding next to mine and how much his constituents appreciate and realize the hard work he does in his riding and the Niagara region.

The establishment of fixed elections is another key campaign commitment the Conservatives made. It is an important step in improving and modernizing Canada's democratic institution and practices. This bill is another step toward restoring Canadians' faith in the political process. First, we are making the timing of elections fair and more transparent; second, we are fixing election dates in October, which will maximize voter turnout; and third, the Canadian taxpayer will save money in two respects.

Currently, Elections Canada must maintain a high state of readiness at all times because there is always the potential for either a motion of confidence or a government to fall. Elections Canada never knows when that will be and basically that costs taxpayers money.

Second, it will prevent governments from calling unnecessary elections and wasting taxpayer dollars for their own political ends. It is tough to accept for the party opposite that called two early elections when it was in power, but that is the fact.

I would like to outline where we have come from as a country and the direction that we are now headed. From an historical perspective, our Constitution does not contain many provisions regarding elections. It is limited to section 50 of the Constitution Act, which in 1867 stated:

Every House of Commons shall continue for Five Years from the Day of the Return of the Writs for choosing the House...and no longer.

Section 4(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was preceded by the Bill of Rights introduced by Prime Minister Diefenbaker, provides as follows:

No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years--

It also states:

--a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons...as the case may be.

A five year constitutional limit of the life of Parliament has only been exceeded once since Confederation, and that was in 1916. This bill provides for what we have all been talking about, and that is fairness. It removes the advantage that the government possesses in being able to decide and determine the date for an election. Currently, the Prime Minister is able to select a date for a general election. This allows for a governing party to potentially manipulate the timing of a general election for its own advantage.

This bill would create a level playing field for all participants in the electoral process by removing two things: uncertainty and the perceived bias to the governing party. The fairness part of this bill also allows people who are considering running or working on a campaign to get prepared.

As I indicated, elections are expensive and according to Elections Canada the 2004 general election cost taxpayers $277 million. It was an election that was called early.

There are so many examples of where fixed election dates are already in place. Municipalities across this country and provinces including British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario have legislated fixed election dates, and other provincial governments have indicated that they are considering recommendations for similar legislation. Even Premier McGuinty in Ontario, who not only endorses the softwood lumber deal, endorses fixed elections. He stated, “And that’s why today we’re embracing the change that is central to our democracy by introducing legislation to fix the dates of elections in Ontario”. That should be no different than here in our country.

This morning I spoke to a constituent of mine, Mr. Mel Chivers, who told me that it was time to straighten out these federal elections and help move the democratic process in this country forward. I agree with Mr. Chivers. It is time that the bill be moved forward and that we take that step forward to real democratic reform.

Canadians went to the polls in 2004 before learning all the details of the sponsorship scandal because it was better for the former government to do that. It was not better for Canadians. Canadians wanted to wait but that did not matter; however, it should have.

Bill C-16 will ensure that election timing serves the needs of Canadians and not politicians. It just makes sense.

For all those reasons I believe that fixed election dates are a change whose time has come. Fixed election dates show that the government is focused on a higher degree of accountability and governments are best held to account when people can vote them in or in some cases vote them out.

I did a little research in history and referred back to the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada which deliberated from 1970 to 1972. Interestingly enough the members travelled all over the country and found at that time, over 35 years ago, that it was indeed also a topic and suggested nine times over that the potential for fixed election dates should be in fact sought.

I smiled a little. When I think about 1970 to 1972, those discussions and those debates would have happened in smoked filled rooms not just the back rooms. During that time in every building, whether it was public or private, everyone could smoke if they wanted to in those rooms. Since that time municipal governments, provincial governments and indeed the federal government determined that the health of Canadians with respect to the issue of smoking was important enough to change.

Thirty-five years later democracy is also important to the health of Canadians. That democracy needs to be changed and needs to move forward. It can always get better. Sometimes it steps back in the opinion of Canadians and gets a little worse, but then we need to take two steps forward.

Bill C-16 takes two steps forward and says to the people of this country that indeed it is about accountability, indeed it is about election reform, and indeed it is about taking action in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, to correct my hon. colleague's preamble when she said that the bill purports to be a bill about fixed elections, I would not want Canadians to think that we were fixing elections. I think that was a direct quote of what she said. We are talking about fixed election dates, not fixed elections as the Liberal member opposite stated. Perhaps that is something she would like to work on, fixing elections, but it is certainly nothing that the Conservative Party of Canada would support.

To the serious part of her question about defining what constitutes confidence, earlier today in kicking off this debate on Bill C-16 my colleague the hon. government House leader talked quite extensively about the problems inherent in trying to put a fence around the definition of confidence.

There are traditional confidence measures in the House of Commons. The hon. member quite correctly stated that the budget is one that over a period of years has been deemed to be a confidence measure in a government, whether it is a majority or a minority government. It would also include any bills dealing with taxation or money bills, whether they are ways and means motions or main estimates. Those types of bills are generally accepted as being confidence or if the government was defeated on them, a vote of non-confidence in the government and the government would fall.

Over and above that I would suggest to the hon. member that it would be very problematic for us to clearly define what constitutes confidence and what does not. My colleague the government House leader gave an example earlier today. What if there was a motion before Parliament of such importance and he used the example of Canada going to war. It is my belief we are in a war right now. But if there were a motion before the House, would the government not want that motion to be a motion of confidence, something so important where we would be sending young Canadians into harm's way? That would be a motion of confidence because if the government were purporting to participate as a nation in a war somewhere, it would only be right that if the government lost that vote that the government would fall.

There are things over and above money bills which the member mentioned that have to be confidence measures. We are going to deal with one tomorrow, the ways and means motion on the softwood lumber agreement. I agree it should be a confidence measure because it is of such importance to our nation.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have one very simple question. Bill C-16 purports to be a bill about fixed elections and purports to provide the security that in the future there will be elections every fourth year in the month of October, starting in October 2009, and that the only time there would be a “pre-election” would be if the government lost confidence.

So on the one hand, in saying that, the party sitting opposite me, the government, the Conservative Party that forms the government, is admitting in fact that it is not quite fixed election dates, because the Prime Minister can go to the Governor General at any point and recommend that the Governor General dissolve Parliament. The Governor General has full authority to dissolve the government at her discretion.

My question, then, is this. Given that, and it is a fact, would the hon. member be in favour of amendments to Bill C-16 that would clearly describe on what kinds of votes of confidence a prime minister would be able to go to the Governor General and recommend premature dissolution of Parliament and limit those occasions?

Would the member opposite be in favour of such an amendment? It would state, for instance, that only votes of confidence on a budget would provide justification for a prime minister to go before the Governor General and ask for a premature dissolution of Parliament under Bill C-16? Would the member opposite be in favour of that?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and join this debate today. I will start by addressing the question that my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party, the member for Yukon, has just posed in regard to his concern that with fixed election dates the last year might result in a lame duck government. I will suggest to the member that we just went through an entire Parliament with a lame duck government. Thank goodness the people of Canada decided to act on that and get rid of that lame duck government last January. Fixed election dates do not affect the ability of Liberals to have lame duck governments.

At the outset, let me indicate that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from St. Catharines. It is a pleasure to do so.

Since this 39th Parliament commenced roughly six months ago, I have taken great pleasure in seeing so many pieces of outstanding legislation tabled in the House by Canada's new Conservative government. While I value the opportunity to participate in debate on any one of these bills, there is a handful upon which I place special value. Most often these are the bills that propose and enact changes I have advocated throughout my 13 years as a member of Parliament.

I cannot sufficiently articulate the satisfaction I experience in finally being able to stand in this House to speak to a piece of government legislation that encapsulates a concept or a belief that I have fought for in Ottawa for so many years on behalf of the constituents of Prince George—Peace River. Bill C-16 is one of those bills. I am very proud to speak in support of it here today.

Fixed election dates in Canada is a democratic reform I have unwaveringly and vocally supported since I entered political life some 18 years ago. To me and my constituents, the benefits of fixed election dates are patently obvious. The concept is simple and serves to enhance our nation's democracy at a time when confidence in our democratic and parliamentary institutions have been eroded by a decade of scandal.

This legislation serves to modernize our democracy, bringing it in line with the realities and demands of Canadian governance in this 21st century. Bill C-16 ensures that no government, not ours or any future government, can manipulate election dates to its partisan advantage.

This legislation in no way serves the interests of the Conservative Party of Canada or any other political party. Our government introduced this reform to serve the best interests of Canadians and to ensure a healthy, vibrant and responsive democracy. Never again will this nation face the manipulation of the timing of elections that we saw throughout the 13 years the former Liberal government was in power.

In 1997, Jean Chrétien sent Canadians back to the polls early despite the flood crisis in Manitoba, which of course, Mr. Speaker, you are very well aware of. In 2000, for the second time, he called another early election to take advantage of favourable polls.

Three and a half years after that, in 2004, his successor, the member for LaSalle—Émard, called another early election when Parliament began to unearth Liberal scandal in its inquiry into the sponsorship issue. This is a perfect example of why Canada needs fixed election dates. This kind of manipulation unnecessarily derails important government and parliamentary business and gives rise to cynicism among voters.

As I said, the concept of fixed election dates is not new. In fact, we are not the first legislative body in Canada to pass the necessary legislation.

As my colleagues have pointed out, my home province of British Columbia was the first to enact fixed election dates. The B.C. legislative assembly passed this electoral reform legislation in 2001. We enjoyed our first fixed election on May 17, 2005. We already know that our next provincial election will be held on May 12, 2009, and on the second Tuesday of May four years after that unless a minority government falls through a vote of non-confidence.

Newfoundland and Labrador enacted fixed election dates in December 2004. Its residents know that their next general election will be held on October 9, 2007, and, in accordance with their legislation, afterward on the second Tuesday in October in the fourth calendar year following polling day of the most recently held general election.

Finally, last December, the Ontario legislature passed a law which deems that Ontario residents will go to the polls on October 4, 2007, and on the first Thursday in October every four years thereafter.

Under Bill C-16, Canadians could face the same certainty, fairness, predictability and transparency that the residents of B.C., Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario now enjoy through fixed election dates.

Upon passage of this legislation, the next federal election would be held on October 19, 2009, unless the current government loses the confidence of the House before that date. Should that happen, the next election following that and others following majority election wins would be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following the election arising from the fall of a minority government.

The third Monday in October is a good choice for Canada, I would submit. Optimum weather conditions, offering the best chance for Canadians to get to the polls, are between May and October. The summer months of July and August, vacation time, obviously are inappropriate for an election. The October date also minimizes conflict with provincial or municipal elections.

This legislation is supported by the Canadian Snowbird Association because it improves the odds that those Canadians who travel abroad during the winter can make it to the polls on election day. They would have that certainty of knowing when the election would be.

The legislation also enhances the opportunity for students to cast their ballots. This is especially important at a time when voter turnout, particularly among our younger generation, has plummeted.

While the proposed date does not appear at this time to conflict with religious or cultural occasions, Bill C-16 carefully ensures that the Chief Electoral Officer can recommend an alternate voting day, on the third Tuesday of October or the following Monday, in the event that such a conflict did arise.

The final benefit of this date, I would like to point out, is that the third week in October also happens to fall within citizenship week in Canada. I do not think there is a better way to highlight the privileges, rights and responsibilities of being a citizen in a democratic nation like ours than to have an election during that week.

Like much of the legislation tabled by this government, Bill C-16 is about moving forward with practical and substantive reforms that provide tangible results and benefit our nation for decades to come. It is about getting the job done. Our nation and this Parliament have many complex and controversial issues to address. Our government is taking immediate legislative action on those matters where we can or is working quickly in concert with Canadians to develop appropriate legislation.

What is refreshing is that we are managing the business of our nation so that when there are issues on which we can take simple, straightforward steps such as this one to enact fixed election dates, we move ahead and do it. That is leadership and, I would submit, it is something this nation has been without for far too many years.

At the end of my formal remarks, I would like to state I am very pleased that the Bloc Québécois is suggesting that it is going to support the legislation. It is a positive sign. I would urge the other opposition parties, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party, to likewise support this legislation.

Let us move it forward and get it into committee. If it needs to be amended or altered, let us discuss that there in a spirit of cooperation and a willingness on the part of all four political parties to move this important bill forward.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. Certainly there is a risk in this bill, and that risk will remain because we are dealing with a minority government. We have no choice. We must work with the current situation. The situation would be different if Bill C-16 were approved by a new parliament, unless, once again, a minority government had been elected.

I am sure that passing this bill would make the government look good, while the government knows very well that it is in a minority position. That would appear very positive. At the same time, this is a measure that will modernize our system and for that reason, I believe we should support the bill without being fooled. We are engaged in politics and the government is playing politics with this bill. That is one of its prerogatives. However, if it tries to make us bring down the government by introducing some measure calling for a vote of confidence, we will try to defeat it.

I have no doubt that people will answer the government when they go to the polls and give it a clear message. I do not think the voters will appreciate calling an election on just any subject. We know that votes of confidence deal with specific matters. We saw that the government called for a vote of confidence on the softwood lumber deal. A vote of confidence must deal with a very important issue. We will see how they act in the future. In the meantime, let us hope that we have time to adopt Bill C-16. Since it will be examined in committee, let us hope we will have time to review it and adopt it in the House, for the future, for a future government. We will see what happens.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to say that even though Bill C-16 is not perfect, the Bloc Québécois will support it because it is a big step in the right direction.

It is very important to have fixed election dates. I would like to give you some examples and talk about my own experience upon entering politics.

In 1993, we did not have fixed election dates. The Bloc Québécois was founded in 1990. We formed committees, and many people sought nominations to become Bloc Québécois candidates back then. In 1993, I was on several boards of directors, including my regional Chamber of Commerce. Such boards are apolitical. I organized a major event for the Chamber of Commerce, the Gala des Zénith, which was the biggest event of the year. We did not know when the election would happen, but we had to hold the nomination process, so I had to resign. My decision to enter politics made things difficult for the Chamber of Commerce because they had to replace me at the last minute.

Secondly, I was in business and had an eight-month contract. When the election was called, I had to break my contract, which was very costly and difficult for me. Not only is failing to fulfill our commitments costly and difficult, it can tarnish our reputations.

Fixed election dates would enable women and men to plan and prepare for elections. Knowing the date in advance, they can take leave from their jobs when they have to. They can seek the nomination when they choose, as close as possible to the election, so they do not find themselves in a difficult position. They will not have to make hasty decisions involving elections that will not even happen until eight or ten months later. That is what we have been dealing with since 1993.

This is an untenable situation that often prevents people from running: business executives, business people, and others who would like to be in politics.

A business owner does not close their doors overnight. It takes time. We do not want to be in conflict of interest with our role as member of Parliament. It is very complicated. This bill will encourage people from all backgrounds, women and men, to represent Quebec and Canada.

The third week of October is a good time. As you know, we had an election on June 28 with one of the lowest voter turnouts because people had already left on summer vacation. In Quebec we were celebrating our national holiday. That was an extremely difficult election. Then we had an election on January 23. Going door to door on January 23, in the middle of winter, when it is -30°C, is not so easy. How do you reach people and how do you motivate them? People do not go out in a snowstorm to vote.

I think this will allow for higher voter turnout because by knowing the election date in advance, people will be able to plan to go out and vote.

We currently have a minority government. This is a good initiative being presented to us, but it does not change anything for now in a minority government. If ever the government is defeated in a confidence vote, this bill would not work. However, if the government decided to cooperate with the House, which it has done so far, it will have the honour of holding its first fixed-date election in 2009. I highly doubt that will happen.

When the next budget is tabled, we will see what the government has to offer our voters. The government has been in power for nine months now, and many things that were supposed to be settled by the fall have not been settled. We have no plan for the Kyoto protocol and no plan for the environment. It has been nine months, and we were promised a plan by the fall. The Minister of the Environment has not even appeared before the committee yet, even though it passed a motion calling on her to appear. A number of promises were made. The fiscal imbalance still has not been corrected.

We will see what the government has to offer us and will vote accordingly. However, it would be worthwhile to pass this bill for the future. In my opinion, it would also save the office of the chief electoral officer a considerable amount of money.

I was talking recently to the chief electoral officer for my riding, who told me that he was being kept on the alert. That means that he has to be ready for an election at any time, which means additional costs, because he has to hire people to keep a minimum number of offices open. If a snap election is called, without a fixed date, he has to hire additional staff. This represents nearly 20 house of work a day. It is crazy.

With a fixed date, this chief electoral officer could plan. In my opinion, this would save a substantial amount of money. A federal election costs $250 million to $300 million. I think that people would appreciate politicians more. I have to say that I have never completed four years here. This is my fifth term since 1993. I have never sat for four years. I have sat for three and a half years.

The election date is always based on polls, on which way Canadians are leaning or on the party's chances of being re-elected. It is extremely partisan and unfair. With fixed election dates, the government will have four years to prove itself. In any event, there will always be partisanship. On the eve of the election, whether or not it is on a fixed date, goodies will always be handed out, but this will allow our organizations to be ready.

Our volunteers who work during the elections are exhausted. There was an election in 2000, another one in 2004, and another one in 2006 and, who knows, there may be another one soon. Without a fixed date, these people cannot plan their schedule. People truly do take time off work to help with election campaigns and volunteer to help us. If they do not know in advance, they cannot plan to take a month or two of leave without pay. We are constantly keeping them on the edge.

There is also the whole issue of funding our political parties. It is very difficult to find funding in 10 or 17 months to conduct an entire election campaign, when we normally have four years to collect the money needed to do so. That means that those elected to this House in 2000, 2004 and 2006 may have astronomical debts because they did not have enough time to get the necessary funding for a good election campaign in their riding. A number of them had to go into debt. They will not even have time to pay that bill before they end up in the next campaign, when they will have to borrow more money. It is an unbelievably vicious circle.

Fixed-date elections will also allow our ridings to be in good financial health at election time. We could have truly good campaigns in our ridings and it would be more fair for everyone.

As I was saying earlier, in five elections I have not sat for more than three and a half years. During the two elections between 2000 and 2006, it was not easy for anyone, the new MPs or the older ones—those of us who have been here for a long time—to collect money and to get organized. It was not easy. Our people and our volunteers get exhausted. Then they no longer want to work on elections that are not planned in advance and they are not necessarily available every two years.

That is what happened in 2004. It was a very difficult election for me because my volunteers were leaving on vacation and I could not stop them. In Quebec, the national holiday is very important. People often go on holidays because it is a long weekend. Sometimes they leave for two or three weeks. We face that situation. Fortunately, you could vote any day; but not everyone is interested in going to vote in the office of the returning officer. For this reason, only 50% of the population voted. This is a very low percentage. I don't believe that election was justified. The government had decided to call an election at that time because the polls were in their favour. It appears that things change.

Quite frankly, this bill is a good thing. I know that it does not affect the Constitution. However, I do not see the government or the Prime Minister dissolving Parliament by arranging for us to vote against a motion and turning it into a vote of confidence. He would then see the Governor General to inform her that he no longer had the confidence of the House. He would be despised. The voters would not forgive him as they are fed up with repeated election campaigns. After this bill passes, the Prime Minister would need a major reason for asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament because he had lost the confidence of the House. It would require something extremely important. People are not stupid. They follow politics and they would discern the government's ploy. Rest assured that the dissatisfaction would be expressed in the voting.

It is a good bill. Many other countries already have such legislation, as our colleagues mentioned earlier. Other countries have also adopted other measures. The National Assembly in Quebec is also considering holding elections on fixed dates in future. I support the idea. But I warn the government never to go to the Governor General and, without reasonable grounds, ask that Parliament be dissolved on the pretext that the government no longer has the confidence of the House. The government must act responsibly and respect the opposition, because we are working here and have ideas to share.

I find it inconceivable that the Prime Minister would announce his foreign affairs program at the UN and not say a word about it here to us, the parliamentarians, who represent all the voters in Quebec and Canada. We are going to find out about it at the UN. It is unimaginable, but that is how he has decided to operate. I hope that there will be much more transparency so that parliamentarians can work together and benefit from each other's ideas.

All political parties have good ideas. The government could benefit from them and, at the same time, obviously, fulfil its mandate as it is supposed to do. It must respect the fact that we have a minority government. It must not shock the voters by calling an election on any old issue or because it is high in the polls.

That is what I have to say. We are modernizing with this bill, and that is important. I hope that, like us, the other parties will support this bill. I know that it will be studied in committee. Consequently, perhaps, some amendments could be made. Witnesses will be heard. It will be important to listen to them to try and craft the best possible legislation.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today, the first day that Parliament is back in session, to speak on fixed election dates. I have listened to some of the debate in the House, not all of it, with a bit of chagrin really at some of the misleading comments made by some of the Liberal members, in particular the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

We all have an obligation in the House to look at the legislation that a government puts on the order paper, and to offer valid criticisms and amendments to that legislation if we feel the legislation is not doing what it set out to do, or if it is legislation we cannot support. Some of the comments that I am hearing amaze me. Members will say that they have no intention of supporting this piece of legislation, but when they are asked a direct question, they are not really certain what their positions are. They cannot have it both ways.

I was elected on June 2, 1997. Three years later, on November 27, 2000, there was another election. Barely three and a half years after that, on June 28, 2004, there was another election. Less than two years after that, on January 23, 2006, there was another election. There were four elections in barely nine years. If there had been fixed terms, we would have saved the people of Canada the full cost of one election, over a quarter of a billion dollars. That quarter of a billion dollars could have been spent on government programs across this country, on very seriously needed infrastructure, on education, on health care, on a myriad of important issues that every man and woman in this chamber face in his or her riding.

To promote the idea that the system cannot be changed, as some of the Liberal members have, is fundamentally flawed. Of course we can change the system. We need to change the system. Before I was elected to the House, one of the first questions I was asked was about four year terms. Back in 1997 I supported four year terms. I have supported four year terms the entire nine years that I have been a parliamentarian. Fixed terms would be good for the people of Canada. Fixed terms would be a positive move to put more responsibility on government. It does not take responsibility away from government. It makes government much more responsible. It takes away one of the government's tools to manipulate the system.

It should be noted that when we started talking about fixed election dates, the Liberals said, “You talk about fixed election dates when you are in opposition. It is an election promise. If you ever become government, it will never happen”. The Conservatives are the Government of Canada. We have introduced Bill C-16 and we will bring in fixed election dates unless Parliament sees fit not to. I would be shocked if any member, for purely partisan reasons, would vote against a bill of this quality.

This bill will deal with a number of issues that Canadian citizens face and will help make Parliament work better. There are some major advantages to this piece of legislation: number one is the issue of fairness; number two is transparency and predictability; number three is improved governance; and number four is higher rates of voter turnout. All those issues, issues that affect the governance of this place, will be assisted and improved under the bill. To say otherwise is misleading.

To listen to the argument that somehow this would change the powers of the Governor General is even further misleading. The power of the Governor General and the power of a confidence motion in the House are inextricably linked. The power to dissolve Parliament is the historical prerogative of the Crown and is considered essential to the principle of responsible government. It is expressly conferred on the Governor General in section 50 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Section 50 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides:

Every House of Commons shall continue for Five Years from the Day of the Return of the Writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer.

Because we are changing the length of the term, the proposed bill has to explicitly state that:

--nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.

The only reason that is in there is to enable a government, if it loses the confidence of the House, to go to the people of Canada. If the government were unable to do that, we would be in gridlock. We would be totally ineffective and unable to govern the country.

I listened to the Liberal members speak as though this was some kind of figment of our imagination, that the only other country in the world that had four year terms was the United States of America and that somehow there was the old argument that the Conservatives were somehow cozying up to the Americans. It is absolutely unfair and untrue.

The reality is that a number of other countries have fixed terms such as Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and last, but not least, the United States. Imagine that, all those countries have fixed elections dates and they still have democratic states.

There are countries that have a fixed term, but allow for more of a degree of flexibility. There is the fixed term of four years and the government has two months from the day to call its election.

It is a very similar system to the one proposed. Those countries include: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy and Spain. This is not something new that is being thrust upon the Canadian public. It is an idea that has been around for a very long time. It should help to bring some credibility back to the Parliament of Canada. It should help to increase voter turnout.

We have had a great deal of discussion before the bill was tabled and we will continue to have discussion with the tabling and at committee. The whole point is of a fixed election date. The next one would be October 19, 2009.

This is an important issue and I hope every member in the chamber will find time to speak to it.

There is much more to say, but I will try to wrap up. We have an opportunity to take one of the primary tools that past prime ministers in the country have used like a club. They have gone to the people before their five years were up and every political party has suffered from that. I think the Parliament of Canada has suffered from it.

For the first we are having a democratic debate on four year terms. This is the first Prime Minister who is willing to give up that huge tool in his tool chest and yet we are debating that in the House. This is somehow up for discussion. This will level the playing field, it will give democracy more of an opportunity to work and it will be a good thing for the public of Canada.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate at second reading on Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act. I am splitting my time with the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's.

During the election campaign I heard a lot from constituents, as I think most of us did, about cynicism and distrust of the political process. In my opinion, the measures contained in this bill are part of a package of electoral reforms that should go a long way toward addressing the democratic deficit that most Canadians are experiencing. I want to thank the Minister for Democratic Reform for bringing it forward.

I want to do just a couple of things in the short time that I have. I want to speak briefly about the benefits that I see in fixed election dates and then address some of the objections that have been raised, but first let me put the bill in some kind of context.

As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I am particularly pleased to support this legislation because Bill C-16 was modelled after provincial fixed election dates legislation. In fact, on my anniversary, May 17, 2005, in British Columbia for the very first time in Canada a provincial election took place on a date set by law. It was not a date set by a premier or a prime minister to work to his or her advantage. That breakthrough was the result of Bill 7 which was passed in 2001 which amended the constitution act to provide for a fixed date for general elections every four years.

In its terms, the act provided that subject to the right of the lieutenant governor to prorogue or dissolve the legislative assembly as he or she sees fit, a general election had to occur on May 17, 2005 and subsequently on the second Tuesday in May in the fourth year following the most recently held general election. That means we know already that the next provincial election in B.C. will be held on May 12, 2009.

Although British Columbia was the first province to enact this kind of fixed election date legislation, other provinces have followed. Newfoundland and Labrador passed its election dates bill in 2004 and Ontario passed similar legislation in 2005. Other provincial governments are actively considering fixed election dates legislation. In fact, throughout the world this kind of legislation is quite common, in Chile, Costa Rica, South Korea, the Netherlands, the United States, Sweden, Switzerland and other countries.

Some argue that in the Westminster parliamentary system flexible election timing is a necessary element in case a government loses the confidence of Parliament and therefore a fixed election date system is incompatible. However, it is important to note that legislation that is similar to ours appears to be working well in New Zealand, Scotland, and Wales, all of which have the Westminster system of government. The legislation in British Columbia and Ontario allows for the possibility of early dissolution, and the legislation before us today is modelled on that provincial legislation.

Before discussing what I see as some of the benefits of this legislation, let me answer the question that I am sure members have been wanting to ask: How has British Columbia's fixed election dates worked and has it been a positive change? The answer in my opinion is an emphatic yes.

Let me mention a number of what I see as positive outcomes. First of all, as Henry Milner said in his study that we talked about just briefly here, “Why should the party in power have a special advantage in planning electoral strategy due to its inside knowledge of when the next election will take place? Why should its leaders be permitted to time an election to exploit conditions favourable to their re-election?”

It is commonly thought that governments can manipulate economic policy enough so that they face voters at the most advantageous time. With election dates known in advance, it becomes more obvious when governments go on a spending spree to bribe voters with their own money. Of course this government will not do that, but previous governments provided plenty of examples of this practice.

Second, it decentralizes power. Canadians know that in our system of government the prime minister has considerable power. Political power, according to Donald Savoie in his book, is without equal in the western democracies. Our Prime Minister wants to re-balance that power. This legislation which would limit his ability to call an election at his discretion is a step in that direction.

Third, this kind of legislation makes the process more efficient in at least a couple of ways. It allows those setting the government's legislative program in parliamentary committees to better plan their work agenda. It is always a frustration of parliamentarians and probably to those who observe our work, to see perfectly good legislation die in committee or on the order paper because of an election which was unexpectedly called. To some extent fixed election dates should improve this.

Also, election planning would be more efficient. It is expected that fixed dates for elections will reduce administrative costs because officials will be able to start their work well in advance. An elections B.C. information officer is quoted as saying that the fixed election date “enabled us to plan and administer the election much better. Electoral district officers had the time to find facilities and train staff so that the election was very successful”.

Fourth, another benefit is that it should reduce voter cynicism and increase voter turnout. In an Environics poll in 2004, 81% of Canadians preferred that elections be held at specific and fixed times instead of whenever the party in power wanted to call them. Anything that reduces cynicism and increases confidence in the political process is a good thing and it should increase voter turnout. Also, if voters know well in advance when an election will be, particularly seniors or students who have seasonal issues, it should allow them to participate.

Fifth, it should increase the quantity and quality of candidates and volunteers as well. If potential candidates can plan well in advance, as some of my colleagues have said, especially those with family or career obligations, fixed election dates should attract more and better candidates who are able to plan for what is coming perhaps a year or more in the future. It should also allow potential campaign volunteers to plan their schedules to be able to participate.

Let me address criticisms which have been raised to fixed election dates.

Some say that it will create a series of lame duck governments especially in the last year of the term. The government would know when the term was going to end and would wind down its agenda and not do anything. I do not understand that logic. I would have thought that if a government knew an election was coming it would beef up its political agenda and would make sure it was doing as much as it could do in preparation for that. In British Columbia there was absolutely no evidence that the government in power was in any way a lame duck. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that the Government of Canada would be any less effective with the establishment of fixed election dates.

Some have said that it is simply illusory legislation, in other words, that the prime minister would still be able to call an election at any time before the fixed date, so it is really not a fixed date. We recently had that discussion in this place.

It is important to point out that Bill C-16 was modelled on provincial legislation for what was called, and we are calling, fixed election dates. In British Columbia the premier retains the ability to advise dissolution before the stipulated date should it be necessary to a loss of confidence. This is required in order to maintain the fundamentals of responsible government within the Westminster system. Those who seem to be opposed--or maybe they are not opposed; we could not quite tell from the recent comments we heard here--I do not know if they want to do away with the Westminster system, but if we want to maintain it, this is the kind of mechanism we have to have.

I am fairly certain there are few here who would be prepared to champion the constitutional changes necessary to create a rigid system that did not permit in any circumstances a Parliament to be dissolved before the scheduled fixed date. As we saw with the May 17, 2005 election in British Columbia, the premier did not call an election before that date. I think he would have been punished if he had.

Some say it is going to result in an extended campaign. Some have suggested that if we know the year the campaign is coming the campaigning will start a year in advance. Perhaps this is something that does need to be addressed. The negative effect of this can be controlled somewhat with proper spending limits and legislated time restraints and so on, and also with the right election date. We are setting the date of October 19, 2009 as the date of the next general election, with the following election being held on the third Monday in October four calendar years hence.

In conclusion, I am proud as a British Columbian to support Bill C-16 because fixed election dates legislation has been shown to work well in B.C. I hope members from all parties will join me in supporting this bill so that Canadians can join the citizens of mature democracies around the world and vote in elections that have fixed dates in the future.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are several ways. One of the ways would be, while not limiting the Governor General's power and authority to dissolve Parliament at his or her discretion upon recommendation of a prime minister, to include clauses that would actually specify the reasons or the justification that a prime minister could legally have to recommend to the Governor General premature dissolution of Parliament.

We would need to actually specify the reasons with which a prime minister would be able to go to the Governor General prior to the date that has been fixed under the bill to recommend premature dissolution. It might be that it would not be a vote of confidence. Would that not be novel? It might be that it would not be a confidence vote because maybe the party that is in power has suddenly gone through the roof in the polls and knows that there is something bad coming down the pipe that maybe nobody else knows about, so maybe it should call an election now.

Nothing in Bill C-16 would stop that party, which is now the ruling party, from doing exactly what it accused and denounced the Liberal Party of doing when we were in power. We would want to look very carefully at including amendments that would limit the reasons that a prime minister could give to the Governor General to recommend an early dissolution of Parliament.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, talking about electoral reform, because Bill C-16 has absolutely nothing to do with electoral reform. If in fact it had something to do with electoral reform, it would then be proposing an amendment to our Constitution to limit the authority of the Governor General and therefore that of the Prime Minister to call an election at any time. Therefore, I have a real problem with this. I want to see the bill go to committee so that we can amend it.

If we are in fact for real fixed elections, and Bill C-16 is about real fixed elections, it would then mean going to all of the provinces for a constitutional amendment in order to limit the authority, the power and the royal prerogative of the Governor General to dissolve Parliament at any time at her or his discretion.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite interesting that the hon. member will read one quote from Henry Milner, but not mention the fact that Henry Milner clearly points out that there is first, a fixed election date, a true fixed election date, but there is no possibility for premature elections.

Second, there are flexible fixed dates, where one knows where the actual election will take place because in the constitution it says every three years on the third Monday of the third month, or every four years, et cetera. That allows for a mechanism for premature dissolution of the parliament or the national assembly. That is called flexible fixed. That was the point I made.

When the Conservative government tabled Bill C-16 and claimed to this House and to Canadians that it is about fixed election dates, it is about no such thing.

If the government wishes to say it is about flexible fixed or fixed flexible dates where premature elections can happen because the Governor General's power to dissolve parliament would not in any way be diminished by this bill, that is factual. Anything else is not factual.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

One of the members just suggested that I look under criminal. I think that is Conservative too.

Let us look at the issue of making premature elections more difficult. If one in fact were to allow for premature elections, which Bill C-16 allows for, then the issue is whether Bill C-16 in any way, shape or form would make it difficult for a Canadian federal government to call a premature election. The answer is that nothing in this section affects the power of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion. That is the long answer. The short answer is that nothing in Bill C-16 would limit or restrict the authority of a Canadian government to call a premature election if Bill C-16 were in effect.

Second, is there anything that even makes it difficult, that would be dissuasive? No, because there is nothing in this section that affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Government General's discretion.

Why is the government wasting our time and the time of Canadians by trying to blow sand in our eyes, by claiming that Bill C-16 is about fixed elections, when it is about nothing of the kind?

It is a marketing tool by the Conservative Party to hoodwink Canadians into thinking that it really is about fixed elections and that the Conservative Party has kept yet another promise. In fact, the Conservative Party has yet again attempted to hoodwink Canadians, and second, this bill is duplicitous. This bill is deceptive. It has nothing to do with fixed elections.

For goodness' sake, if the Conservative government were honest, it would at least say that the bill has nothing to do with fixed elections, because even if the bill were to come into force, the Prime Minister would still be able to go to the Governor General at any time and ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. The Governor General's royal prerogative to do so would not be in any way diminished, limited, reduced, or any other word we can think, by this bill.

If the Conservative government were honest, it would at least admit that.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I know, but I also like saying duplicitousness. If I look in the dictionary next to Bill C-16, I see Conservative Party and duplicitous. That is what I see when I look in the dictionary: Bill C-16, Conservative Party, duplicitous.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

--and recommend to the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. The Governor General would have all the authority to do so.

As my colleague from Beaches—East York just mentioned, if somebody actually read the BNA Act, our Constitution, they would see that this is actually what we already have. Under the Constitution, Parliament has to be dissolved no later than in the fifth year of the preceding election.

However, within that time, the prime minister can go to the Governor General and recommend that Parliament be dissolved at any time. In fact when one looks at it, historically it is usually toward the end of the fourth year following a general election that the prime minister of a government in Canada has actually done that. That is the first thing.

I ask that members please not say that Bill C-16 is about fixed election dates, because it is not, and I ask them not to claim that this would ensure that the Prime Minister of the sitting government, the Conservative government, will not, to use the terms that the members opposite have been using this very day, abuse his authority by calling an election at any time. In fact, if this bill were in effect right now, it would allow the sitting Prime Minister of the Conservative Party, who is also Prime Minister of Canada at this point, to go tomorrow to the Governor General. There is absolutely nothing in the bill that would stop that.

I ask members to please not call it a fixed election date and to please not attempt to portray it as being something fundamentally different from the system we have been governed by here in Canada since Confederation, because this does not change anything fundamentally. This is a game of smoke and mirrors on the part of the Conservative government.

Does that surprise me? I would like to say it does, but unfortunately it does not. It is no different from the tabling of the 2006 budget. The Conservative government heralded tax cuts. It said, “We are going to help the most poor, the most disadvantaged”. What? Does increasing the lowest marginal tax rate from 15% to 15.5% lower taxes? No, of course not. It increases taxes.

I do not know about my colleagues on the opposite side, but I can speak for my colleagues on this side, the Liberal Party, the official opposition. After July 1 when that tax hike kicked in, most of us received a lot of letters from our constituents who happen to be seniors. They were saying, “I thought the Conservative government said it was lowering taxes. How come my taxes just got increased half a point?” They were not too pleased. The Conservatives may want to think about that.

On the other hand, the Conservatives talked about lowering the GST and how that was going to put a lot of money into people's pockets. Studies actually show that in order for somebody to make back $100 on that one point reduction they would have to spend a heck of a lot more money. They would have to spend $10,000 for that one point reduction to put $100 in their pockets.

I do not know too many people in my riding who have that kind of disposable income that they can spend $10,000, whether it be on clothes, restaurant meals or buying a new car. I do not know too many people who can spend $10,000 of their disposable income in order to get back $100. Most people would have preferred that the marginal tax rates remained where they were rather than increase them 5% in order to pay for luxury items for people who can afford to go out and spend $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 a pop.

Another example of the duplicitousness of this--

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I apologize.

I should say that the right hon. Prime Minister and his cabinet should state that Bill C-16 is not about fixed election dates. Bill C-16 is about fixed flexible dates, which would still allow the prime minister all the authority to go to the Governor General at any time prior to the set date--

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to participate in a debate when you are in the chair. I will read a clause from C-16.

Clause 1 is one of the most important:

1. The Canada Elections Act is amended by adding the following before the heading “WRITS OF ELECTION” before section 57:

Date of General Election

56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion.

If this bill were to be passed and adopted , it would receive the royal assent of the Governor General, the Right Hon. Michaëlle Jean, at her discretion, during her term of office.

The most important section and the actual core of Bill C-16 is the section that states:

Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion.

For those who may be watching TV right now and may not understand what that actually means, under the British North America Act and our Canadian Constitution, the Governor General has full authority, a royal prerogative, to dissolve Parliament at her or his discretion. Tradition calls for the Governor General to do so only at the recommendation of the sitting prime minister.

Therefore, one could pardon the Conservative Party prior to becoming the government, when it was in official opposition, for saying it was talking about fixed elections, but in fact not fixed elections. Now that it actually forms the government, one can no longer excuse that. The government has constitutional experts at its fingertips and knows very well that it cannot institute true fixed election dates without diminishing the discretionary power of the Governor General under our Constitution to dissolve Parliament upon recommendation of the prime minister. This would mean that the Governor General would have absolutely no royal prerogative at her discretion to dissolve Parliament. That requires a constitutional amendment, ladies and gentlemen.

So when the Conservative government, since tabling Bill C-16, has a campaign calling Bill C-16 a bill to create fixed election dates, I would say the government and the bill are clearly duplicitous, because that bill is not about fixed election dates. That bill, by precisely saying in that very paragraph that nothing in it affects the powers of the Governor General, “including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion”, shows that it is duplicitous.

It has absolutely nothing to do with fixed election dates, because in fact fixed election dates are fixed election dates. One cannot change the date at any time. In order for the Conservative government to bring in legislation with actual, factual and true fixed election dates, its bill would have to diminish the powers of the Governor General to dissolve Parliament at any time as per her or his discretion. In order to do that, the bill would have to amend our Constitution. This bill does not do that.

The Speaker of the House has said that I can say this, so if the government were honest—and that has been deemed parliamentary—the government would in fact say that this bill is not about fixed election dates and that this bill does not in any way diminish the power of the Governor General nor the authority of the Prime Minister at any time, even the day after. If the bill is adopted, goes through all three readings in the House, goes through all three readings in the Senate, becomes legislation and the Elections Canada Act is changed, the very next day the sitting Prime Minister could go to the Governor General and say, “I'm calling an election”, and the Governor General would be able to dissolve Parliament.

So for the Conservative government to claim that Bill C-16 is about fixed election dates is not telling the whole story. The story is what under this we would be talking about for the Prime Minister between the date that Bill C-16 would become law and the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following the first general election after this section comes into force, which would be Monday, October 19, 2009. Between the date that this bill comes into effect and Monday, October 19, 2009, the Prime Minister could go to the Governor General at any time on any single day and say, “I am asking and recommend that you dissolve this Parliament”. The Governor General would have the power and the authority under our Constitution to dissolve Parliament and launch a general election.

At the very least, the Conservative government should state in fact that Bill C-16 is not fulfilling its electoral promise to create fixed election dates. What it is doing is simply saying that if the Prime Minister, between the adoption of this bill and Monday, October 19, 2009, has not woken up at any time and decided that he wants an election, then the election will happen on October 19, 2009, but that at any time before that the Prime Minister could recommend to the Governor General to in fact dissolve Parliament. That is the first thing.

When one looks at what is the definition of “fixed election”, I would recommend that my colleagues go to a major study that was done by Henry Milner, “Fixing Canada's Unfixed Election Dates: A Political Season to Reduce the Democratic Deficit”, published by the Institute for Research in Public Policy on December 5, 2005, volume 6, number 6. He actually gives a definition. It is quite interesting. He states that a fixed election date is when there is no possibility of dissolving the assembly, whether it is a national assembly or a parliament, prior to the date that has been fixed by legislation.

In any other system, yes, the Constitution of the country may in fact establish, for instance, that the term of the assembly is three years or four years and actually may lay out the third Monday of the 10th month of the year. There is thus an election every three or four years, but it also allows a mechanism for early dissolution, either because of a non-confidence vote or because there is an issue that the government wishes to plebiscite on. So in fact, that is not a fixed election date. That would be called a fixed flexible date, because while there is supposedly a fixed date, the government or the assembly still has the power and the authority to dissolve prior to the expiry date of the fixed term, whether it is three years, four years or five years.

The very first thing, the very least thing the Conservative government and Prime Minister Harper and his cabinet should say is in fact—

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very much in support of the legislation. I strongly believe that this country needs positive electoral reform and this is a very positive measure.

However I would like my colleague's comments on the vote tomorrow. As we know, the House will be voting on the issue of softwood lumber and the government has called that vote a vote of confidence. My fear is that even though we are moving with Bill C-16, and I think the House will be supportive of that proposal, calling these constant votes of confidence on legislation undermines in many ways the spirit of the proposals we are trying to put forward in Bill C-16.

If we have a fixed election date and then the government wishes to have it fall because it wishes to call an election in order to go to the polls, then in many ways we would be going against the very spirit and principles that we are trying to outline in Bill C-16.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act. I will go through the act by summarizing the legislation provisions. I will then describe to the House what problems the bill resolves and I will end by pointing out some of the benefits it will give to the Canadian democratic system.

I have seven points in summarizing what the law does. First, it ensures that elections will take place every four years on the third Monday in October.

Second, it ensures that the first of those Mondays will be October 19, 2009.

Third, it ensures that the date is chosen so as not to conflict with any religious or national holidays.

Fourth, it ensures that in the event of an unforeseen conflict with a religious or national holiday and perhaps with a provincial or municipal election the date can be adjusted.

Fifth, to prevent the abuse of this ability to adjust the date, it ensures that the date can only be moved to the Tuesday after the Monday or to the Monday that follows the third Monday. In other words, the fourth Monday in October.

Sixth, the law is carefully crafted to ensure that no limit is placed on Parliament's ability to indicate loss of confidence in the government or of the Governor's General's prerogative to dissolve Parliament. In this light, I will stop for a moment to address the question raised by the hon. member opposite just a moment ago. Section 56.1 of the act will now read or will be added to the current legislation:

Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.

Were that not there, then the law would in fact be unconstitutional. It goes on to state:

Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day....

That is how we deal with that very important constitutional provision.

Seventh, in the event of an early election that occurs on a day other than the third Monday in October--presumably this would be an election in a minority government where the government was defeated by the opposition--the calendar for future elections would automatically reset to the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following the year in which the election caused by that vote of non-confidence takes place.

I want to talk about what this resolves. It removes the power of the prime minister, nominally the Governor General but always the Governor General acting on the advice of the prime minister, to call an election when it is good for the government, when it suits the government and when it is damaging to the chances of the opposition, the main opposition party or some other opposition party, to contest that election. It would remove an inherent unfairness in the system. I have only been elected to this place three times, in 2000, 2004 and earlier this year, but in my short parliamentary career I have found the system to have been abused egregiously by the former prime minister, Jean Chrétien, in calling the election of 2000 and again in 2004.

In 2000, he called an election shortly after a new opposition leader had been elected. He called it at a time when nominations had not been completed in most of the country for the then opposition party, the Canadian Alliance. In doing that he unfairly advantaged the governing Liberals and hurt the opposition party, the Canadian Alliance. I saw this in action in 103 ridings in the province of Ontario, as there then were. Nominations that had been completed for the Canadian Alliance at the time that he called the snap election with no advance warning were called when 5 of those 103 ridings had completed their nomination process. In the other 98 ridings no nomination had been finished, including in my riding.

What happened at the conclusion of that election? The Liberals won 100 seats, the New Democrats won one seat and the Canadian Alliance won two seats. Due to the vagaries of our electoral system, that in no way reflected the actual vote total but it did give the results that Jean Chrétien wanted. It gave him another majority government that he did not deserve and would not have had, I would argue, had he had to follow a reasonable timetable that did not give him this unwarranted discretion.

Out of the 98 candidates who had not been nominated until the election was called, only one, myself, actually managed to win the election. Even that, frankly, was due to a three way vote split. Of the five candidates nominated, my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke was elected, about a 20% success rate. That gives us an idea of what he was doing and the abuse of the system that he perpetrated. This could not happen under the law as written now.

Which government will be the first to face this restriction on its power? The current government will not have the kind of power to abuse our democratic system the way that Jean Chrétien and other prime ministers before him have abused it.

In 2004, something similar happened. The election was called before the main opposition party, the new Conservative Party of Canada, had a chance to hold its first policy convention. The Conservative Party had no way of planning its first policy convention and produce a platform prior to that election being called. What was the then prime minister doing during that election, hon. member for LaSalle—Émard? He was ranting about how we had no policies and inventing the most egregious and outlandish policies to fill the vacuum created by the fact that he was able to call an early election. That is the kind of thing that will not happen under the current legislative proposal.

I want to talk about the benefits. To some degree we can discern the benefits of the new legislation from the problems that I have raised but I wanted to break it down into four headings. The first of these benefits would be that all parties could now prepare for elections. They could plan their leadership races secure in the knowledge that a snap election would not be called at a time when they were in the process of electing a leader. That is a significant advantage. They could also plan their policy conventions as my party was unable to do in 2004.

It is an advantage for people who are considering becoming candidates. There is much talk in this place, especially when we think we would like to vote ourselves a pay raise, about the importance of getting the best candidates to come in here and contest elections. That is fine for those who are independently wealthy and those who have jobs, particularly lawyers, that permit them to have a great deal of flexibility, but if they come from a job where they cannot take off time to seek a nomination in quite the same way or to be a nominee for some unspecified period of time, the uncertainty associated with not knowing when an election will be called means that it is necessary to put their life on hold in a way that precludes many quality candidates from actually seeking nominations.

I can think of a couple of examples prior to the 2004 election which were cited in The Hill Times. All members have access to back issues if they care to look up the stories of how individuals had to withdraw from nominations. I know of a policeman in the Toronto area who wanted to run for my party but he had to withdraw because it was impossible to coordinate his job demands and the demands of an uncertain electoral timetable. Riding associations could now plan their nomination meetings to occur at a time relatively close to an election rather than trying to preclude the unforeseen future election that might come at some point.

Elections Canada could improve how it conducts elections. It would reduce costs and improve efficiency if it were certain that elections were going to occur on a predictable four year timetable. For example, the problems of finding and renting space on an uncertain schedule is very difficult, particularly in areas where there are low vacancies in rental properties.

In 2000, it was so hard to find rental space in my riding, the old riding of Lanark--Carleton, that the Elections Canada office wound up being placed literally across the street from the riding boundary. It was the least central location imaginable in the riding but it was the only way Elections Canada on short notice could secure rental space in that riding.

It was very difficult to deal with the boundaries redistribution issue when there was great uncertainty prior to the 2004 election as to whether the then prime minister would call the election when the old boundaries were in place or the new boundaries. This created immense chaos in my riding and many others across the country because there was a great lack of information about where the boundaries would be and therefore the administration was to pursue.

My last point is that voter participation would greatly increase.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would again comment on the fact that my hon. colleague opposite does not quote any constitutional law experts. She is just saying “some” experts.

I can assure members that there is no constitutional imperative that would require any change to the current conventions of the House. In fact, the current conventions would be either further entrenched by this bill, as opposed to the conviction held by the hon. member from Wascana. In his opinion we should be removing provisions of the act that allow the prime minister to go to the Governor General and ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. If that happened, in my opinion the end result would be the courts would then have to determine what would be and what would not be a confidence vote.

Right now Bill C-16 entrenches the conventions that we have held for over 100 years in this Parliament. We do not need a constitutional law expert to verify that.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to comment on the views of some constitutional law experts who have said that the government's Bill C-16 would in fact change the powers of the Governor General. In order to do that, fixed election dates--

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

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-16 and to signal, as I did earlier this afternoon, that the NDP would be supporting this legislation. We are looking forward to getting it into committee for further discussion and perhaps amendments. In essence, the proposition being put before this House right now is one that we have supported for a good number of years. In the 2004-06 Parliament our former member, Ed Broadbent, was a strong proponent of this and encouraged the government of the day to press forward with it, to no avail. We are pleased to see that the government has in fact moved on the issue.

To a great extent this bill is about combating the cynicism that is in the electorate. We can say it makes sense for our electorate to know that there would be a fixed date for an election every four years and prepare for it knowing in advance when voting would take place. However, what is more important, and I do not want to downplay the significance of that certainty of a fixed date, is that if this bill passes it would be an opportunity for this House, for Parliament, to say to the citizens of Canada right across the country that we are no longer going to have their decision making process manipulated by the government in power. That has been very much the history of parliaments of all stripes in this House.

A parliament, a government of the day, will say this is to its advantage to go now even though it is nowhere near the generally accepted four, four and a half year mandate that we should stay and work and do what is our responsibility to the country. The government says, no, this is to our advantage right now, because of this issue, it is popular in the country, it is our issue and so we are going to go to the electorate.

We saw that, as we heard from some of the other speakers today, in the last number of years happening repeatedly, where we had elections at three and three and a half year intervals, and that suffers. If nothing else, if we want to look at it from a non-democratic standpoint and simply from a financial standpoint, it means we have more elections, and those cost money, in the range of $200 million, each time we go to the electorate. More importantly, the essential issue is that we say to the people of Canada that we are no longer going to manipulate the electoral date in order for it to be of advantage to the government in power of the day.

One of the side effects of that, because of the certainty of the date which would allow people to know in advance when the vote would be and to prepare for it, is that it would increase, I believe, the number of people who would vote because they would not feel this negative cynicism toward all parties and all politicians from this perspective. They would say that they knew this election was coming at this point, it is part of our law, they are ready for it, they are going to participate in it, they are prepared for it, and they have not been forced to go to the polls only because of an opportune time for the government in power. For that reason the bill is important. It is one that we should all be supporting. I think we have heard today from the various parties that they all intend to in fact support this approach.

I suppose the comment one has to make is that it is too late. We should have done this a long time ago, but in fact we are now finally now getting to it.

One of the concerns that we do have of this legislation is with regard to the situation in a minority government because of course this law would have no effect if the past practice continues. The past practice is, as often as not in a minority government situation, that the government comes down not so much because of a lack of confidence generally in the government but on a specific issue.

We are proposing for consideration in this minority government situation, and we will be raising it at committee when it gets there, to constrain the ability of the government to intentionally bring itself down by creating a false issue, by setting up an issue that all three of the opposition parties with the majority of seats in the House would vote against. That has happened and there certainly has been speculation that the government may be planning on doing that some time in the spring of this session.

In order to avoid that kind of cynicism, there are alternatives. I put this to the government House leader today. He, of course, was dismissive of it in the sense that it would usurp the power of Parliament and cross over into conflict with our courts. What I suggested to him was that we limit the number of issues that can be confidence motions, so that a government cannot unilaterally, as it can now, say an item is a confidence motion and if we do not vote with it the government, it goes down and we have an election.

That again is a manipulative tool that governments in the past have used. From a democracy standpoint there is no reason to have that in our system. We could, I believe, with some discussions, debate and negotiations come to a conclusion and incorporate that into legislation as to what is a permissible motion of confidence and exclude all others.

One of the answers I received from the government House leader was that we cannot do it because we would end up being challenged in the courts. That is not necessarily the consequence. The decision as to whether a motion is one of confidence or not, once we have set the criteria, could be determined, first by your Chair, Mr. Speaker. That is one alternative, or it could be by a vote in the House. There are other alternatives.

Albeit, and I am not going to advocate it, another alternative is to allow the Governor General to make that decision. Being an unelected position and being a strong democrat, I am not prepared to turn the power over to that office, but I do believe it would fall within the perspective, control and authority, and jurisdiction of either the House or of the Speaker of the House at the time, and so there are alternatives.

Going back again to why we are supporting the bill, both from a democratic standpoint but more to deal with cynicism within the electorate, it would be another way of saying to the electorate, even in the minority government situation, that they would not be forced to go to the polls, that we would be able to continue the government and continue on the issues that are confronting the country without going to the electorate. We would not allow the government of the day to simply say something is a confidence motion, that if we do not vote with it we would have an election.

There are alternatives. It is an alternative that I believe would deal very much with the other part of the cynicism when elections are called in this country.

I want to say that there are clear reasons why this will be effective and I want to address one of the negatives at the same time as seeing it as a positive. I believe that by allowing for fixed election dates we actually would reduce the amount of partisan electioneering that goes on between elections. We would reduce it to that latter period of time, to the last six months.

What happens now, and I think we are being less than honest with the electorate when we stand in the House and say that we are going to be in a constant election mode with the implication being that we are not right now and we are not even in a majority government situation. I have been in both. Anybody who has been here knows whether one is in a majority government situation or a minority government situation, as it stands right now, electioneering goes on because we do not know, and I was very glad to hear my colleague from the Bloc making this point, when the plug will be pulled. Right now we are into that situation and in fact we do partisan electioneering on a constant basis.

Having fixed dates, I believe and would argue strongly, would reduce the amount of partisanship that goes on between elections and restrict it to the latter period of time of, as I say, six months to a year before the campaign starts. The argument is that it is somehow going to increase the amount of politicking that goes on, being meant in a negative tone, the result of which will in fact be just the opposite.

With regard to the other positives here, again it is a situation where because one knows what one is confronted with in terms of a date, the recruitment of candidates by all parties and the recruitment of volunteers by all parties will be enhanced when we know the dates that we are working toward as far as the election date itself.

The bottom line is, and I will conclude with this, if we proceed with the legislation as proposed, it is definitely a step forward but it is not enough. I believe we should strongly look extensively at the issue of how we trigger elections in a minority government situation around confidence votes and amend this legislation to include criteria as to how the situation would be dealt with then. That would go to finalizing that cynicism that the electorate feels toward all politicians about the way we manipulate election dates in this country.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

moved that Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-16, fixed date elections. I am also pleased to be standing here in my capacity as Minister for Democratic Reform. It is something that very much interests me and I am delighted to hold this particular portfolio.

I am absolutely convinced, since going back to my days at Queen's University where I studied the parliamentary system and the different legislatures around the world, that the British parliamentary system as adapted by Canada is the best system in the world. It has a tradition that goes back centuries. Some legislatures can point to a history of years and in some cases even decades. We can go back centuries of the British parliamentary system having provided effective, secure and stable government for people around the world. I believe we are very lucky to have it. However we have adapted it to ourselves and that is what is important. It is important to realize that no system, not even the best system in the world, is static; it must change.

In Britain alone, from the times of the Magna Carta, there were huge changes over the years to the system, all adapting and making the system a better one. The Constitution of 1688 is a good example of a break from the past but nonetheless an important change.

We too in Canada have made huge improvements to the parliamentary system in our short history. I think back to the 1800s when various Canadian provinces developed the concept of responsible government. Responsible government meant that the governor was taking his direction from the legislature. This was a huge step forward. Everyone recognizes that made government fairer, more democratic and improved the system that we had. Some of the changes are large and some are incremental but they are all moving in the right direction. We only have to look back to the last century to some of the changes that were made in Canada, such as the extension of the voting franchise.

If we were to go back a little over 100 years ago we would see that voting in our system of government was confined. It used to be confined just to property owners. It was extended to adult males and into the 20th century that changed. I remember this point being brought home to me during the election of 1984. I visited a senior citizens home operated by the region of Niagara where I met an elderly woman. I, like all new candidates, shook hands and said hello to everyone. This woman stopped me and said that she wanted me to know that she had voted Conservative in every single election since the Conservatives gave her the right to vote. It took me aback. I said to her that it must give her a good feeling to know that she has always been right, as indeed she has been.

Another Conservative prime minister, John George Diefenbaker, continued to extend that franchise to Canadians when he extended the voting rights to aboriginal Canadians. I think everyone at that time and since has realized that these are the steps we must take to make our system more democratic and more fair.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about another change in our electoral system, one that I think will improve it, Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, which would provide fixed date elections.

I will begin with a description of the current process for calling elections and discuss some of the difficulties associated with it. This will be followed by a discussion of the many advantages that we will have when we adopt this legislation, as I hope this House does.

Currently it is the prerogative of the prime minister, whose government has not lost the confidence of the House of Commons, to determine what he or she regards as a propitious time for an election to renew the government's mandate. It could be three years into a majority government, which is what we saw in the year 2000 when the government felt it was to its advantage to call a snap election to get another mandate. I also could go back to the early nineties when another government, with which I am very familiar, decided not to go in 1992 but waited until 1993. That particular Parliament lasted almost five years. There is quite a bit of leeway.

When the prime minister, under the current system, requests the dissolution of the House, the governor general, unless there are unusual circumstances, agrees and the country finds itself in an election. What we have is a situation where the prime minister is able to choose the date of the election, not based necessarily on the best interests of the country but on the best interests of his or her political party. I believe Bill C-16 would address those concerns.

Before going into the details of the bill I would like to discuss the key advantages of a fixed date election. Fixed date elections would provide for greater fairness in election campaigns, greater transparency and predictability.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)