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.

Canada Elections Act

[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.

[An hon. member]

Greater fairness, yes.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Transparency and accountability. The President of the Treasury Board knows all about that and how important that is. This is what we want.

There would be improved governance, I believe higher voter turnout rates and it would assist in attracting qualified candidates to public life.

Let me discuss the issue of fairness. Fixed date elections would help to level the playing field for general elections. The timing of the general election would be known to everyone. Since the date of the next election would be known to all political parties, they would have equal opportunities to make preparations for the upcoming election campaign. 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 would be on an equal footing.

That has to be of particular interest to opposition parties that have not had the opportunity to call an election. Every party would know when the election will take place and would be able to make the appropriate plans.

Another key advantage of fixed date elections is that this measure would provide transparency as to when general elections would be held. Rather than decisions about general elections being made behind closed doors, general elections would be public knowledge. Instead of the prime minister and a small group of advisers being the only ones who know when the country will move into the next general election, once this bill is passed, all Canadians will have that knowledge, which makes it fair.

I said that it would improve governance and I think it would. For example, fixed date elections would provide for improved administration of the electoral machinery by Elections Canada. The Chief Electoral Officer, in a majority situation, would know with certainty when the next election would occur and would be able to plan accordingly. This would certainly give greater efficiency to the work of Elections Canada and, quite frankly, would save money. All of us know the situation where Elections Canada is trying to make a reasonable guess as to when the election will be called, scrambling to rent space and come up with locations for voting. All these things cost money. It seems to me that this would save money if we knew with certainty when the election would be called.

Another good reason for this bill is that I believe we would have higher voter turnouts. We are suggesting that the elections be held on the third Monday in October, except when the government loses the confidence of the House. That is a time when the weather in most parts of the country is generally the most favourable. Indeed, in my riding of Niagara Falls it is pretty well still summer. I appreciate that it is at the southern end of the country and it is not quite the same for others, but nonetheless the weather is still pretty reasonable in October.

Canadians would be able to plan in advance. Those who are thinking of taking a vacation or who might be outside of their constituencies can make plans to get their votes in when they know with some certainty. That is not the case if they are out of the country or visiting somewhere and the election gets called. Those things pose some difficulty. For those individuals who know well in advance when the election is coming, this is a step in the right direction.

This is not just important to the people who are voting. How about candidates? All of us know people who want to or are prepared to get into public life but who want to know when the election is. Right now we do not have a particularly good idea. It could be three years, as it was in the year 2000, or it could be five years, as it was in 1993. This can be very difficult for candidates. People have other lives and they want to know with some certainty when they will be called upon to put their name forward. It would help to attract candidates to the next election.

Let me give some of the details of the bill. Legislation providing for fixed date elections has to 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 we respect the Queen and the Governor General's constitutional power to dissolve Parliament. The bill before us was drafted carefully to ensure that these constitutional requirements continue to be respected. The bill does not in any way change the requirement that the government must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. Moreover, all the conventions regarding the 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. Moreover, 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.

We looked at other legislation across Canada when we were putting this together and the bill is very similar to legislation that is in British Columbia, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador. It should be noted that the legislation in those provinces is working.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the government House leader in regard to this bill. I was a little disappointed that he did not address some of the arguments that would tend to indicate that this is not all win-win. There are some risk elements. For instance, there is simply the aspect that, as is the case in the United States with its fixed election dates, the year before the election is spent electioneering and in fact governance does not occur during that last year. It is very likely that the Government of Canada would not be productive and, therefore, responsible government would not be present during a very long period of time. I am not sure that Canadians are ready for this.

The member indicated that a poll had been taken of Canadians. I am not sure that Canadians were given all the information they needed to make an informed decision and I think that is also important.

My question to the government House leader really has to do with the fundamentals. He referred to the Prime Minister being able to go to the Governor General and recommend an election. He gave some examples from the 1990s. The government House leader should, and I hope he will, confirm to the House and to Canadians that in fact that royal prerogative for the Prime Minister to recommend to the Governor General to dissolve Parliament without the condition of having lost confidence of the House will still exist under this legislation.

Therefore, a fixed election date is only providing a recommended date in the absence of a loss of confidence in the House or at the discretion of the Prime Minister to go to the Governor General, as has been the tradition in the past, to recommend the dissolution of Parliament. I think that has occurred in all of history except in one case where someone else was asked to form a government and an election in fact was called.

To be open and transparent with Canadians, will the government House leader clearly state that the royal prerogative, which entails the Prime Minister going to the Governor General to call an election even if a confidence vote is not lost, will stay in place and there will still be an election when the Prime Minister chooses it?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member covered a number of different areas and one of them I believe was disadvantages. I hope this means he is not going to oppose this bill. It is fair enough to have some questions, but I really hope this bill will receive his support.

He said there would be electioneering in the last year before the election and nothing would get done. It seems to me it would be the contrary. If a committee were trying to make a report and plan its time, those members would know exactly when that report would need to be done. It is very challenging with our present system because an election could be held after three years, four years or five years. A committee could be doing good work, but its members do not know whether to undertake a new study or whether they should make plans for the fall because they are in the dark. They do not know when an election will be called. It seems to me this would be a huge improvement in terms of organizing time.

I looked at what happened in British Columbia. My colleague the chief government whip is nodding his head. Things unfolded as they should have. There was a normal campaign as we might expect. We are in public life. We are always ready for elections. We are always keeping an eye on that sort of thing. It seems to me that knowing an election will be held in four years would allow more things to get done.

My colleague asked about the polling. The poll was taken in June. The hon. member could probably take this up with Ipsos-Reid because this was their poll. This is a well-known national polling organization, and I have every reason to believe this was a fair poll. I have no evidence to the contrary. The hon. member might want to take this up with them. They found over three-quarters of Canadians liked the idea of taking some discretion away.

The hon. member mentioned the Prime Minister. I do not know who he is talking about. I can tell him about this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister will live by the law and spirt of this particular piece of legislation. He and this government are driving this democratic reform.

This legislation does not involve just fixed dates for elections. The Senate tenure bill is an important piece of legislation. These are all steps in the right direction, but again, they do not remove the royal prerogative. I was asked this question by one of the members of the opposition quite some time ago. I assured him that the royal prerogative with respect to dissolution remains. This bill is an expression of how the House intends to conduct itself.

I hope the hon. member will do the right thing and give his support, and help move this legislation to committee.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have always wanted to acknowledge the fact that my friend is a graduate of the law school that I went to. However, I am not sure it really helped him a lot in his political career in terms of where he has ended up.

The NDP are in support of this bill and I think he is aware of that. We do have reservations around the minority government situation and the ongoing reservation of the royal prerogative in those circumstances. In particular, our concern is that a prime minister or a cabinet of the day could manipulate, if I can put it that way, the political agenda by way of designating any number of votes as being confidence votes, knowing that at some point they will provoke the combined opposition to vote against a bill.

I wonder if my colleague's government has given any thought to limiting that government power to specified areas, that is, only certain types of bills. I would suggest, because of historical precedence, that these should be money bills and that only money bills should be designated as confidence motions. All others would simply be regular votes and therefore would not provoke or justify the calling of an election if the vote failed against the government.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that I pointed out the problem. If we started defining what constitutes confidence in our parliamentary system, we would be open to this then being challenged in the courts. I presume that all hon. members do not want to have the courts determining something like the confidence measure that is a part of our parliamentary system. It has been around for hundreds of years. It has changed slightly over the years, but everyone understands it to be one of those things that are important for a government to do its job.

The hon. member says it might be just limited to money bills. I could not disagree with him more. If this country put before Parliament measures to confirm that Canada will be at war, would that not be an awful lot more important than some spending in a particular government department? To my mind it would be, and of course that would be a confidence measure.

We should look at the softwood lumber agreement. It is an agreement between two countries involving the three largest provinces in Canada. It is vital to the lumber industry. When it first came to a vote in Parliament, I said that it was not an agreement; it was a miracle what the minister was able to put together. Nonetheless, it is extremely important and yes, that is a confidence measure.

The member should not always think that what is important is in terms of dollars and cents. It goes far beyond that. That is why we worded the bill the way we have.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to be back in the House of Commons after the summer recess and to see you, Sir, looking so well.

I am pleased to rise to speak to the bill today. As the official opposition House leader mentioned when the bill was first tabled in the House, the official opposition supports the bill in general but we do have some concerns in regard to ensuring that the objectives of the bill are properly met within the proper constitutional framework of the House of Commons and our relationship with the Crown, and also in regard to taking full advantage of some of the opportunities that the government House leader has mentioned to ensure that the efficiency, the cost containment, the decline in cynicism, and the representativeness of candidates and such, which are potentially the promise of this bill, are actually fulfilled.

Let us start with the first section of the bill, which would amend section 56.1 of the Canada Elections Act. It states, as has been noted:

(1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion.

We have had a question from a colleague of mine and an answer from the government House leader with respect to what defines a vote of confidence and therefore a lack of confidence, a vote of non-confidence, and he has responded very broadly that it is not just money, that it might be war or some other thing that the government thinks is very important. That is the very type of looseness that can create uncertainty and can, I think, create instability in the House, uncertainty in the public mind and a frustration of the objective of the legislation, which is otherwise quite appropriate. We are not voting against the bill, but we will be looking in committee to get some constitutional definition around what we are talking about.

People looked at the election in Germany in 2005. Many people reported at the time that it was their opinion that then Chancellor Schroeder manipulated the defeat of his own government to cause an election at a time that he thought was advantageous, so I think we are going to want to look at what role the courts may well have on this, what role the Governor General has, how much discretion is actually there, and what has happened to that royal prerogative over time, through disuse or whatever. It is an important thing for our constitutional democracy. In committee we will have to get a firm grip on it and in a way which I think does the basic work that has not yet been done to interpret the impact of the bill.

Looking more generally at the bill, I think the government House leader is correct in saying that we have a building practice in this country, an experience, of fixed election dates. Not only has my province of British Columbia had fixed date legislation, but it has had an election with a fixed date. I must agree that this has worked out as well or better than anyone who had some misgivings about it could have thought. It did bring predictability.

It has actually demonstrated to many other provincial jurisdictions in the country that this is something that should be part of their democratic reform package. We have heard that Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Quebec are looking at this as a way to go. It may well be that this is just a trend, that as with medicare in Saskatchewan, it has been tested in the provinces and its time has come federally, but of course we must always look to those examples for their experience and what we might do better with this legislation as it goes forward.

In December 2005, the Institute for Research on Public Policy did an exhaustive study of parliamentary democracies and democracies similar to Canada's and what sort of election timing legislation and rules they followed. It found that only 11 out of the 40 democracies similar to Canada's have unfixed dates such as Canada does.

Globally, the trend is certainly toward that. I think we should be taking it very seriously. Certainly, therefore, we should not put up any blinders to suggest that we have always done it a certain way and therefore we simply cannot change it. Others have changed it and it is working well. There are lessons we can learn from that. That will be very much a part of this debate and the committee work.

Certainly the efficiency argument has some real merit if this is really used responsibly. In the planning of committee work, public policy development, legislative approval and bureaucratic implementation, if we take advantage of this certainty, not to simply become lame ducks during the last year but to in fact plan efficiently right up to the date the election campaign starts, then there is real potential for efficiency to be achieved from that predictability.

We know that certainly in law and legal principles, and in criminal law in particular, certainty is absolutely critical as a basic tenet of the criminal law of Canada. We know that in business certainty and predictability are often even more important than the particular taxation rule or regulatory rule. Business has to know what is coming to properly prepare. I think the work of the House of Commons and the Government of Canada can benefit from that as well if it is properly planned.

The fairness issue is a good one. The government House leader raised it. In our discussions of how we develop public policy, we must always, in the House and, frankly, in government, look to the fairness, not just from our own subjective point of view but also from the view of the public. I think we have had experiences in Canadian parliamentary democracy, if not federally then provincially, in which the public has decided that the early calling of an election is unfair and inappropriate. We saw that in Ontario some 15 years ago, when the government that called for an early race paid for it through the public's feeling that it was unfair.

That transparency, that level playing field, that coming to a place like Ottawa to the House of Commons with a firm mandate and a majority government to work to a certain schedule and to fulfill that obligation to the public, all of that, I think, is something that should be emphasized.

That fairness will help erode cynicism. I think we in this House are all too painfully aware that the public is cynical. We are constantly under pressure, and an appropriate pressure, from the public, our constituents, to deal with the cynicism that perhaps the best interests of individual Canadians are not always looked after in the House. We have to do everything we can to break down that cynicism. If this is properly implemented, I think this can help do that.

Of course, if we increase fairness, transparency and planning and if we reduce cynicism, that should lead to greater voter turnout. That is one of the most important indicia of the health of a our democracy, which slipped a bit in 2004. It went up again in 2006, but we are still far below what I would see as a healthy voter participation in our democratic process. I think that is important.

Of course the date that has been suggested, that of the third Monday in October, helps with voter turnout with respect to the seasons. At that time we do not have a lot of perhaps retired and senior citizens holidaying in the southern United States to avoid the cold weather, and we do not have students out of university or people who are away during the summer and are not available to vote or take part in the whole civic engagement. That could all be very positive.

I understand and appreciate that voting in February or January in Vancouver is no problem at all. In fact, we had a very great time with the weather in the lower mainland during the last election, but I do appreciate that other parts of the country, including Niagara, that wonderful temperate area during certain months of the year, could benefit in voter turnout from not having to face harsh winter weather conditions.

The early fall date I think is an interesting one. Ontario has picked something similar. B.C. went for a late spring date and there is some consideration in British Columbia of moving it to the fall. I think there is some real purpose behind that. For one thing, the lead-up, the period of the campaign, would be at the end of the summer. Rather than suspending the parliamentary session in mid-session, that is helpful. It is also helpful with the predictability of planning courses in high schools and universities around civics for seniors, community groups and new immigrants, courses around electoral responsibility and the democratic process. The predictability in putting those types of civil exercises into a predictable annual rotation is probably helpful with turnout as well.

The question of representativeness of candidates is an important one. We know that we struggle in this country, and certainly in the House, to have the appropriate representation of women, for instance, which is of course far below the pro rata size of the population. I believe it is 21% in the House and I know that all of our parties struggle with it. I think we have to struggle together as a House of Commons and look to the legislation to ensure that as it is finalized and implemented--and it may be amended--it takes advantage of whatever opportunity a fixed date can provide for forward planning, for organizing someone's professional or family life, for fundraising, and for the whole nomination process of candidates to ensure that this increases the representativeness of the House by gender and as well as to properly reflect the indigenous, the multicultural and the linguistic duality and the multiplicity of this country. That could be an important thing.

One of the problems that we all must be aware of and has been spoken of often is the further Americanization of the Canadian political situation. I think what we have to do is look to this legislation to ensure that this does not happen--the fixed date may actually help if we do it properly--and that there is a shorter campaign period.

The government House leader mentioned, and I think correctly, that electoral officials can plan better with a fixed date. A lot of the work they might have to do during an election could actually be done before the campaign starts, so the campaign could be shorter. With appropriate campaign and political financing laws, I think that could be very helpful. It is something we want to pay very careful attention to: ensuring that the campaign period is limited and that the political financing laws are aligned with that to stop the great expense and lame duck or never-ending practice of the American political process.

There is another issue that I think we should look at just briefly and then perhaps in more detail in debate in committee. We should look at how federal election fixed dates, if we are indeed going ahead in that direction, fit in with other levels of government and their electoral dates. There is a possibility there, if we can align through intergovernmental discussion. For instance, Ontario will have municipal elections this fall and then provincial elections in 2007. As well, Lord knows, we are going to have the American presidential election in the fall of 2008, and then, as set out in this legislation, a federal election in the fall of 2009.

Is there some way we can annualize our civics courses, our public education, so that we are both avoiding overlapping elections, which frankly can exhaust the public, and also taking advantage of every year having a swing through, a reminder, a refresher or mock elections and such in our schools, universities, colleges and communities to really heighten people's awareness of the issues and of the importance of their democratic participation?

Finally, I would put the aspect of democratic reform in a broader context. We have political financing reform that was brought in by the former Liberal government. The accountability act takes further steps in political finance legislation. It has not been completed yet but it is certainly in play, and political financing is a big part of the electoral framework.

Another aspect is election timing, and we are addressing that today. Another aspect is the voting procedure and looking at different systems, or combined systems, than simply the first past the post system. We know that many democratic parliaments in the world operate on different voter systems. We know the Law Commission of Canada has come out with a very detailed report recommending a mixed proportional system.

British Columbia had a very engaged citizens' assembly process to look at a potential change. It got almost 68% of the vote on a plebiscite issue, but not the 60% needed. There are numerous jurisdictions across the country, I believe six in all, looking at different voter processes. That is another piece of it.

Finally is the public engagement part of representative democracy, and that is absolutely critical. Democracy is always on a spectrum between participation and direct representativeness. We have to get that balance right, but it is only healthy if our representative democracy is responsive to the participatory engagement of our population. As a fourth level of electoral reform, this is something that, as a House, I hope we will consider very carefully.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments made by my colleague for Vancouver Quadra on this important legislation.

Already in the debate this morning, there has been some discussion and questions from opposition in regard to the legislation. I thought the government House leader did an excellent job of explaining the rationale for the legislation and why we believe, in the Conservative Party of Canada, that all members of Parliament would want to support it as our Parliament and parliamentary institutions continue to evolve. It is an important step forward.

My question deals with the prime minister's prerogative to note that he and his government perhaps have lost confidence of the House, therefore precipitating an election. There were some questions about why we would still need that and what would constitute loss of confidence in this place. I believe the government House leader did a pretty good job of explaining why that is necessary.

We certainly do not want the courts to muck about and define what is or is not a confidence motion for our Parliament. However, I would suggest to my hon. colleague for Vancouver Quadra that if we get this legislation in place, there will be public pressure, both on the opposition in a minority situation and on the prime minister and the government, to very clearly explain to Canadians why an election would be necessary.

Once there is a fixed election date in front of Canadians and they are anticipating and planning for an election, in this particular case on Monday, October 19, 2009, if confidence is lost in this chamber and the Prime Minister is required, under our system of government, to go to the Governor General and have her call an election, I think there will be increased pressure to explain to Canadians why we could not wait until that fixed election date. That is a good thing, because it would provide, at least I hope, for much greater stability in Parliament and in the nation.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of ways of looking at this question. I quite agree that during a minority parliament if a vote were lost by the government in the House, there would be a very rigorous public and political debate over whether that constituted confidence or not. This would happen probably before the vote as well as after the vote, if the government lost.

It will be a political context. The Governor General will of course be thinking very carefully about this legislation, what the spirit of it is, what her constitutional responsibilities are, what historical practice has been and what the public debate and political debate has been. I do not have any doubt about that.

We have another situation and there is an uncertainty there. I think one of the useful things that the committee can do is to look at whether there are some defining points. Are there some, not rigid formula that the courts will interpret and must be followed, objective criteria that can give some direction to the political and public debate and the Governor General's consideration?

An additional problem is not where there is a minority government, but where there is a majority government, as was the case in Germany last year. Despite there being no issue of confidence and the government having a majority, the prime minister still has the prerogative. The Governor General, under this legislation, would still have the prerogative to dissolve parliament and call an election. That is another challenge for members to think through to ensure we get it right so we do not hobble or cement an advantage now, which many people see as being an unfairness.

Let us make sure that the objective that is before us is properly met in the most effective way.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vancouver Quadra raised the issue in his answer about the prime minister still having the prerogative under a majority situation to call an election before the fixed election date, if the bill becomes law and were to be in place.

Yes, under the legislation the prime minister of the day would still have that freedom to go to the Governor General and ask her to dissolve parliament and call an election. I suggest it would be very difficult for any prime minister to sell that to Canadians if they were expecting, especially under a majority situation, that parliament was going to last for a period of time. I cannot imagine why a particular prime minister would feel that he or she could not continue to govern, despite the fact of having a majority and having an election date some time into the future. I believe it would have to be an extraordinary situation for a prime minister to do that. If a prime minister went against the spirit of this legislation and purely called an election because he or she felt the opportunity was ripe, that the situation for his or her particular political party was very advantageous to go to the polls, I suspect that person would quite likely be punished by the Canadian people in the subsequent election campaign.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the chief government whip is probably right that there would be tremendous political pressure against a crass move that was not in emergency circumstances or in some very important circumstance. However, we have an obligation in the House, to the fullest extent that we can, to simply not rely on political dynamics to ensure that something untoward does not happen. I invite government members on the committee and all members in further debate to think very carefully about this prerogative because it leaves an uncertainty.

Let me mention a type of situation which could occur. There could be a change in leadership of the government party by reason of death or incapacity, or whatever, shortly after an election. There has been a practice in our parliamentary democracy, it is not inviolate but it is quite frequent, that a new leader seeks to get his or her own mandate at a fairly early date. Maybe we can look at this opportunity to break that expectation or trend. To me it has always seemed a bit like putting a presidential aura around a prime minister who is not directly elected, but is only the leader of a party with the most elected members. If a new prime minister used that reason for asking for a dissolution, I would like to see that rejected. Maybe the legislation could make that clear in some way.

All I am suggesting is that we tighten this up to the full extent possible to ensure the certainty that we are seeking.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is certainly worthwhile. Everyone will benefit a great deal from having elections held on a fixed date in the Canadian parliamentary system.

I would like to tell the government that the Bloc Québécois members will definitely support this legislation because, in our view, it represents a step forward. People need to understand that we again have a minority government. In recent years, we have had several elections in a short space of time. Canadians need to know that since I became a member of Parliament in 1993, no majority government has completed its full mandate, which should run between four and five years. Choosing an election date has become a political plaything for a prime minister, who tries not to find the best way of accommodating voters, but to find a time when public opinion may give him popular support. It has become a guessing game, with absolutely disastrous consequences.

First, people get fed up with having hundreds of millions of dollars of their tax money spent to hold an election four, six or eight months before it is required. Holding elections on a fixed date is sound fiscal policy. It is wonderful. A normal mandate runs for four years. This gives the government time to do things, and no one has to deal with the stress of an unexpected election campaign.

There is a serious shortage of women in politics. But let us look at what is required of candidates who want to join us here in the House of Commons or serve in the provincial legislatures. We are talking about professionals, business people, people who have some responsibility in society. They are expected to announce six, seven or eight months in advance that they intend to run for office. Imagine a wife and mother or a career woman who also has family obligations. She has to tell her husband and children that she plans to run as a political candidate in the next election, with all that involves.

This is fine if the election is called a month later: people announce their intention to run, then they start campaigning. We know how it works on the ground: we campaign daily, selling memberships leading up to a convention and convincing the organizers. That is how we work. However, the election might not happen until seven months later because the Prime Minister decided to put it off since the polls were not looking very good. Then people find themselves in a pseudo-campaign situation for six or seven months while they prepare and wait for the big day. Obviously, they have to keep working at it because everyone knows they intend to run.

This kind of cat-and-mouse game is detrimental to recruiting candidates. If we know that the election is to take place on such and such a Monday in October of such and such a year, people can plan for it, at a time that suits them, and then announce their candidacy.

I sincerely believe that one of the major advantages of this bill is that is would simplify life for people who want to enter public service, but who are not prepared to play around with their careers for five, six, seven months, or maybe even a year while they wait for a general election to be called. This is an extremely important part of planning the transition from private life to political life for people who decide to take the leap. This is an important element.

The second very important element is that democracy works best when everyone, even the men and women in politics, knows that there are fixed elections. Fixed elections enable us to take more coherent, organized action rather than playing the will-he-or-won't-he game with the Prime Minister.

I believe that there is nothing worse for democracy than letting the Prime Minister decide when to hold an election based on when public opinion tells him he is at his best, and then surprising everyone with the election announcement.

In my opinion, an election is not a game. An election must be taken seriously, approached honestly and not be a surprise. It must take place in its own time in order to allow citizens to express their opinions. This is another extremely important consideration.

Past prime ministers toyed a great deal with election dates. Oddly enough, this card has almost always been played in the month following the arrival of a new leader of the opposition. That indicates that the prime minister would take stock of the situation. If the Bloc Québécois was holding a leadership convention, the time was right to call an election two months later. How considerate. There is no time to organize as everyone is caught off guard.

A leadership race is currently underway in the Liberal party. It would be tempting for a prime minister, in these circumstances, to call an election perhaps two, three or four months after the new leader is chosen so as to not give this individual the time to organize.

I must say that the Prime Minister is being reasonable and sensible when he tells citizens that he is setting aside this prerogative, which is his to exercise, and doing so deliberately. He says that he will not play games with the opposition parties or public opinion. He will simply respect the mandate given. Obviously this bill does not and cannot change the constitutional powers of the Prime Minister and the Governor General, particularly those of the Governor General.

A responsible government assumes that the Prime Minister could, at any time, if defeated in the House, go to the Governor General and advise him or her that he no longer has the confidence of the House. That goes without saying.

The Constitution has not been amended. However, the Prime Minister, by putting forward this legislative measure, and even if he does retain the authority to act otherwise, places considerable political pressure on himself and on those who will follow .

People would not understand, for example, if the Prime Minister, after tabling this Bill providing for elections in October of 2009, should decide to call an election in 2008, with three months notice—because the polls were favourable or because of some other circumstances—perhaps because he was hoping to achieve a majority government. That would not be well received. The voters would say he was two-faced, saying one thing when talking about principles but acting in an entirely different way when it is time for action.

It is no secret that in tabling this bill, the Prime Minister is creating a framework that he will have to respect in all situations and that he must accept. In addition, what he is doing will have consequences for others. He is agreeing, for himself, to give up that prerogative of playing with election dates. As a result, it won’t be done any more.

Once he has taken this step, the path will be marked out for subsequent prime ministers, who will have to respect this legislation which is a very clear expression of the will of the House of Commons.

Moreover, the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer has very complex work to do to prepare for an election. At present, the possibility that there might be an election at any time during the government’s mandate requires Elections Canada officials to be in a state of constant readiness. Some rather large expenditures are linked to that state of affairs. I am not just talking about the mandate of a minority government. It is true even in the context of a very strong majority government, as we have seen in the past.

It seems to me that with a fixed election date, in the context of a majority government, Elections Canada could better plan its work and its schedules and be better prepared, more adequately prepared, when the situation required it. That is also an absolutely remarkable benefit.

In addition, elected members have many other matters to be concerned with than the need to be re-elected, perhaps in a year-and-a-half, two years, or three-and-a-half years. They have a great deal of parliamentary work to do and lots of work in their ridings. Having a certain, predetermined room for manoeuvre will allow members, through agreement with all parties, to plan the work of parliamentary committees and the legislative agenda to be accomplished. The government and the opposition will be able to plan better and work more effectively. It avoids unpleasant surprises and enables parliamentary committees to schedule their work so that within one mandate a number of problems could be dealt with. Parliamentary committees will be able to plan their work and establish a schedule that respects dates known to everyone.

A clear democratic advantage ensues, for this leads to improved democracy. As for the practical organization of elections, this will also allow for a better electoral process. It also has the advantage of making it possible to better organize the work of Parliament. It also allows very worthy candidates to better plan the announcement of their candidacy, which is not currently the case. This could draw more women to political office, and certainly more senior level professionals who cannot risk putting their careers on hold for months at a time.

Furthermore, researchers looked at approximately 40 parliamentary democracies from around the world and found that only 12, including Canada, do not have fixed election dates, or at least an electoral period established within a couple of months. In short, only 12 out of 40 do not have elections on a certain day or during a certain period. This means that accepting fixed election dates would be a step towards progress. It would mean joining the 28 other parliamentary democracies that have established this rule. This also prevents overlapping with unsuitable periods for an election, such as during holidays or during periods that could interfere with elections being held in other areas of our public life. This allows us to simply declare late September and October, every four years,as the election period for the House of Commons, as we would all know that the election is held the third Monday in October. Everyone could then plan their schedules based on this information.

We therefore support this bill. It does not change our democratic habits in any drastic way; it merely specifies the importance of fulfilling four-year mandates.

I have served several terms in this House since 1993, and I have never seen a government complete its mandate. When a minority government was elected, reporters asked me whether I was disappointed that we had another minority government, because that could mean an election in the relatively near future. I told them that whether we have a minority or a majority government, it never completes its mandate. The legislation before us will allow governments to complete their mandates. That is what we hope and want. For a minority government to complete its mandate, it needs to do one very simple thing: respect the members of this House.

Any government that decides to respect the will of the House of Commons will easily be able to complete its four-year mandate. From now on, the Prime Minister and the cabinet—the executive—will have to agree to govern by consensus. The opposition has the power to allow the minority government to continue or to defeat it. Of course, our goal is to allow the government to govern. But the government has the responsibility to develop the tools it needs in order to govern. With a minority government, an election might be held in October 2009. This government would have to try to govern more openly to rally the forces of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, the opposition as a whole or the Liberal opposition. This is possible. It has happened in the past, and it generally means more responsible governance.

Fixed election dates can benefit both majority and minority governments. We all try to the best of our ability to ensure that the government governs properly, over the course of a full mandate. Canadians do not like having too many elections and want us to act responsibly. The bill will make that possible.

Again, without eliminating the Governor General's prerogative to dissolve Parliament, the Prime Minister has set an extremely rigid set of parameters for himself, and he will have to abide by those parameters or else lose all credibility. When he has followed those parameters once, his successors will be morally obliged to do the same. This is a step forward. I salute this initiative. The Bloc will support it on its merits, as it approaches every piece of legislation tabled in this House.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard a very fine speech. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean who is very eloquent and has a quiet, subtle way of advancing ideas that are real food for thought.

He mentioned one point that I would like him to explore further. That is the need of ordinary citizens for fixed election dates. Why? As he explained, they are a great help to the hon. members and the parties. However, for a community that is waiting for a bill, for example, what is the effect of fixed election dates?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this briefly, but for the benefit of my hon. colleague and everyone else, I will add the following. The parliamentarians in this House and the government could do a better job of preparing; they could draw up their schedule better and would have a better idea of how much parliamentary time they have to critique a bill and consult Canadians. If necessary, they could consult a little longer and do further research.

When we know the election date and how long we have for our work, the quality improves. We know where we are at.

I am the House leader. I have been in the House of Commons for 13 years and have been House leader for 12.

For all 12 years, at the end of every session ministers in the various governments come to see me, because I am the House leader, and beg me to allow their bill or legislation to pass. They tell me that a certain bill is absolutely essential and ask if I would be willing to consent to this legislation being speeded up so that it can pass.

I am saying this for the people listening to us and for the hon. members who have not yet had a chance to experience a few ends of session. I find this game at the end of parliamentary sessions unseemly and unfortunate. However, I can understand it.

A minister who has an important piece of legislation— on the environment or industry or in any given area—is very eager to see it pass. He has worked on it for seven, eight or ten months and sometimes more than a whole year, and there have been consultations and much effort. When the minister sees the end of the session looming, he definitely does not want to all this work to go down the drain. He does not want to have to start all over again a few months later, or even after an election, because there is nothing left that matters any more.

Fixed election dates would eliminate surprises. How many prime ministers have thrown their own ministers for a loop by calling early elections? It is amazing. I think that Canadians—whom we are supposed to be serving here by introducing and passing legislation—would be happy to know that the hon. members work in a planned, orderly fashion and that the results will arrive as expected.

This would therefore be a great improvement for everyone: for both the people and ministers. They voted for legislation and did well. It will be easier for them and easier as well for opposition members to work on legislation that they want to help along. That is another good reason to support this bill.

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Quebec for giving a good speech.

Obviously it is always the third party’s fault when a government that had a majority for close to 10 years did not have an opportunity to put its own bill to the vote. That is what happened with the previous government. I find these stories really funny.

I agree completely with the member from Roberval: this new bill would let us know ahead of time when the next election would take place. The ministers would have lots of possibilities and would know how many years, months and days they had left to work on their bills.

Something else that is very important is the way things operate, particularly a minority government. But it is exactly the same way of operating in a majority government: the ministers work with the opposition critics.

I had a very enjoyable experience working with the former Bloc Québécois critic, Benoît Sauvageau, who passed away. He was an extraordinary man, a very honest man, with great abilities and a lot of experience. It was a great pleasure for me work with him. All our thoughts go out to his family and his colleagues on both sides of the House.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the President of the Treasury Board liked what I had to say about the ministers. I can tell you that this is so for all ministers of all governments. It is natural and it is also to their credit.

I have always had respect for a minister who goes to the trouble of crossing the House, of coming to see me, going to see the leader of the official opposition or the leader of the NDP to try and get a bill passed. I have always found that it was a mark of trust and commitment on the part of such people.

So I sincerely feel that holding elections on set dates will get rid of this element of surprise. It will give rise to fewer surprises for these people, and more work will get done with better planning.

It has happened that, in wishing to support bills, we have agreed to go a little faster, and sometimes we have made mistakes from going too fast, because the legislative process requires us to act seriously. This is another reason in support of holding elections at set times. We will have more time to do our job properly, we will not need to fast-track, there will be less need for us to rush and there will be less risk of typos slipping into bills. So it is a good measure.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments. Two minutes remain for the question and answer.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh has the floor

[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.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the hon. member had to say. I am encouraged to hear that it sounds as though he is supporting election reform in this manner. I was, however, disturbed by some of the amendments that the member was proposing with respect to confidence motions in the House.

It seems to me that governments are elected on a mandate and are expected to deliver on the promises they have made. Certainly, this government is making a case for the fact that it will deliver on what it has promised. If bills are going to be constantly debated, and no one has to express confidence in a government, I do not think any government could really go to the people and express that it would deliver on its promises. I would like to hear what the member has to say about that.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member should study some of the other governments. I am going to use England as the example. England's legislature has been going through an extensive reduction in the votes that are considered to be confidence motions. It does not in any way demean the democracy in that country. I believe it is just the opposite.

Governments there, both conservative and labour, have suffered defeats on issues they ran on and saw as part of their mandates in their elections. Their governments did not collapse. Democracy continued in that country. It can in fact work.

The other point that one would have to make, if one goes back and studies the history of successive governments in this country, is that all too often matters that were not part of the mandate are brought forward as confidence motions. They tend not to be the major issues of the day on which the political parties ran for government or ran for office, but more mundane ones that are oftentimes manufactured as causes for confidence motions knowing that the opposition parties collectively will vote against it and bring the government down.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the member raised a couple of interesting points. I think there is general support in the House for the legislation but subject to some discussion and maybe some witnesses at committee on a couple of points, many of them are around the issue of the concept of the royal prerogative.

As the member will know, Eugene Forsey has opined that to set fixed terms for government or fixed election dates would in fact require a constitutional amendment. He also indicated that a constitutional amendment would eliminate the royal prerogative because then the Governor General would not be in a position to go against the laws of the land. In fact, even if a prime minister were to go to the Governor General because he or she would like to refresh the mandate, the Governor General would probably have to say no simply because of the issue that the royal prerogative in fact would have been muted by the override of Parliament.

I am wondering if the member has done any reading in this area and whether there is any concern with regard to the need for a constitutional amendment in this regard.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have looked at it to some degree. I certainly do not claim to be a constitutional law expert, which is what we are into here. I would not challenge Mr. Forsey's opinion but it is only one opinion. There are strong opinions on the other side within the constitutional law, both academics and practitioners, that this proposed amendment by the government to the elections act would withstand a constitutional challenge.

I would make one additional point and that is that our Constitution is not just a written one. The Supreme Court has made it clear that we can create constitutional conventions and that may very well occur here. It is certainly what I believe would occur if we moved along the lines I am arguing for which is a restriction on what a vote of confidence is. If over a period of years the Governor General were advised by the government of the day to have an election on a certain date and abided by that, over a period of several elections that would then become a convention within this country. The same would be true in a minority government situation along the lines that I previously mentioned.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, being a former municipal councillor I have always supported fixed election dates. It has never been an issue. People know when an election will be held. It is no big deal. B.C. has fixed election dates. I think it is about the only thing Gordon Campbell has done in B.C. that I agree with.

One group of voters that are ready and waiting for the next set election date are the voters of Vancouver Kingsway. They were denied the opportunity to send a message to their member of Parliament who betrayed them in the last election by switching parties. While I support set election dates, it is very unfortunate that the Conservative government has chosen to sweep under the carpet and ignore one of the most basic forms of voter accountability and democracy in our country and that is to ban floor crossing.

I would like to ask the member for Windsor—Tecumseh if he could comment on that. It seems to me that we cannot cherry-pick these issues. This is about democracy, accountability to voters and making our system work. The fact that the floor crossing bill never happened under the government is a crying shame and really betrays the voters of Vancouver Kingsway who have a right to say something about what took place there.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not have said that better myself.

What we are doing here with regard to fixed election dates is a very small part of the electoral reform this country needs. Floor crossing is one of the issues that badly needs to be addressed given how the electorate has been so abused by both the Liberals and the Conservatives in the last two Parliaments.

A number of other amendments and changes to our laws are needed. Some are extensive while others are fundamental. In the last Parliament, Mr. Broadbent led the way at committee by proposing a number of necessary amendments to our laws and to our system. I was just reading one of the reports from the committee before I came over here today. The Conservative government supported a number of those amendments and yet we have seen no sign of them. We see things like the push for an elected Senate being sidetracked to a significant degree by the appointment of unelected senators by the government and by simply moving to change the time they will be in office.

A number of things rapidly need to be done and the government is just sitting on its hands with regard to them. We really have to question its intent and its sincerity in this regard.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will just take this opportunity to briefly ask my colleague about the need to reform the elections act. In terms of election financing, one of the most glaring things facing us today that we believe could have been addressed by the government is the fact that the current Liberal leadership race is relying on massive election loans that are more like donations which would clearly be in violation of the election financing act were they viewed in their real context.

Perhaps my colleague from Windsor could comment on the lack of real election reform and the need for raising these other important issues in the same--

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know it is in the rules of this place that no one is to be accused of breaking any laws. Indeed, the laws are being followed in accordance totally with electoral laws. I think the premise of the member's question and the insinuation is an embarrassment to Parliament.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not get any implication from the member that he was accusing the Liberals of illegalities but more of moral bankruptcy, and he is right. The issue of those types of loans was raised in 2003 at committee by one of our members who is no longer in the House that this was a glaring loophole. We are seeing that loophole being exploited at this point.

What are they thinking Canadians will think about that? It clearly is a loophole and it is a wonder that the government did not plug it. Some more work for its members to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, in case there is any confusion among those people who are viewing this debate, I want to say that we are not talking about fixing elections because that would be a bad thing. Bill C-16 is a very good thing. This is part of our overall democratic reform package. I think it will be well received within this place because it is one of the more positive steps in democratic reform that any government can bring forward.

We currently have a system where at the will of the government it can call an election. That obviously leads to many things along the lines of manipulating voters and manipulating dates to get the most beneficial time to the governing party to call an election. Obviously, as many speakers before me have indicated, this would bring an element of fairness to the whole equation.

I should also say at the outset that I am very pleased to hear the majority of my colleagues in this place stating unequivocally that they plan to support this important legislation. I say the majority but I cannot say all because as usual my colleagues on the official opposition side of the House, the Liberal Party of Canada, seems to be all over the map in terms of whether they want to support this or not. I heard today my hon. colleague from Vancouver Quadra state that he wishes to support this legislation, although he offered a few pieces of advice that we perhaps could tweak the legislation and make it stronger.

I have also heard in previous interviews the member for York South—Weston state without reservation that he will support the legislation but I also hear my colleague from Wascana say without reservation that he will oppose the legislation. I suppose it is not unusual to hear my colleagues on the Liberal side of the House once again failing to come to any unanimity on a very important issue. In fact, I find it distressing and troubling that members of the Liberal Party of Canada would oppose, in any way, shape or form, a sense of accountability that would bring transparency and fairness to this place.

Let me once again try to point out some of the elements of this legislation and why it makes sense to me and to most Canadians. In fact, I should say that a recent polling has observed that over 77% of Canadians polled think that fixed election dates would be a good thing and a necessary change. I agree with that for all of the right reasons.

First, of course, it would ensure fairness. It would ensure that no party, regardless of political affiliation, while in power would be able to manipulate a date for a federal election to its particular advantage. I must say that this has happened time and time again over the last 100 years and not only by Liberal governments. It has happened with Progressive Conservative governments in the past. In fact, my research indicates that since 1867 with majority governments, the vast majority of governments ignored the four year traditional and conventional timeframe for federal elections.

Not once over the course of 12 years did the previous Liberal government adhere to the four year convention. Former Prime Minister Chrétien was in the habit of calling elections every three to three and a half years. That allows the governing party to have a political advantage over its opponents. Only the governing party knows the dates of the next election. If the polls happen to be favourable and it looks like the governing party might be returned in either a majority government or at least a strong minority, the governing party can call an election at its whim.

Conversely, if it appears that the polls indicate that the governing party may not win an election at that four year cycle, it can delay that election up to five years and beyond. Quite frankly, that should not be allowed to happen.

This legislation would take care of that. It would make it incumbent upon the present government and governments in the future to adhere to a fixed date for federal elections. The manipulations of governments trying to buy voters with their own money would come to an end. This is a very important step in our package of democratic reform.

It is more than simply fairness. It is the transparency that I think most Canadians are looking for in their elected officials. Canadians do not want to think that the timing of a federal election will be held behind closed doors where a bunch of party hacks and pollsters get together and say that this would be their best chance to win the next election and that they should call the next election on a particular date. That should have no bearing on the timing of a federal election.

The bill, if adopted by this place and the upper chamber, will prevent that type of action from happening again. All Canadians will have the luxury of knowing that their governments, now and in the future, will have to adhere to a certain timeframe, the third Monday in October every four years. If that is not enough, it will also improve the ability of each successive government to provide the type of legislation and governance that Canadians expect and, frankly, deserve.

Too often we find a sense of gridlock within the public service because public servants are unaware of when the next election might be called. They are somewhat fearful of bringing forward initiatives or improvements within their particular government department or agency for fear that legislation or that initiative will be quashed by the government with the call of a federal election. Without question, if all parliamentarians and public servants knew that there were specific and fixed dates for elections, governance would vastly improve.

One of the more important elements of the legislation, of which very few people have spoken today, is that with fixed election dates I believe voter turnout would probably increase. Right now we all know and I think admit that there is a high level of voter cynicism for a number of reasons. One of them is that elections can be called at the whim of the government in a majority situation. I believe if the general public knew when the election would be held, they would have more confidence in coming forward to vote on election day, notwithstanding that if we had fixed elections dates, over time there would come a sense of knowledge and reality within the electorate that every four years, the third Monday in October, there would be a federal election. It would become almost routine and more and more voters would come out to the polls because they would know and expect an election on that appointed date.

One of the real tragedies we have is the fact that over the last 10 years or so we have seen a steady decline in voter turnout to the point now where slightly over 60% of Canadians exercise their franchise on election day. That is a tragedy. Decades ago we had 75% and in some provinces at least 80% voter turnout. People took pride in the fact that their vote counted. They had an opportunity to change the course of the country or at least elect a government that seemed to agree with their particular point of view.

Now, particularly among young people, we find a situation where people just do not feel they have an opportunity to truly influence democratic institutions. This is one small step in rectifying that.

Finally, I encourage all members in the House, particularly my friends opposite, to vote in favour of the legislation. Without their support, without the support of all opposition parties, the legislation will fail. That would be to the detriment of all Canadian people.

The government is convinced and committed to ongoing democratic reform. This is the first step and we will take other initiatives as we come through this fall session. With the support and help of all my hon. colleagues, we can all engage in true democratic reform for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during his speech, the member referred to party hacks and other backroom people setting election dates.

Would he care to comment on the story in today's press from the Conservative Party hacks and backroom boys that the next election is next spring, right after the budget comes down?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has again got it completely wrong. It is idle media speculation.

Let me just assure my colleague that the longer we have a chance to stay in power, with the legislation that is being so overwhelmingly approved and appreciated by Canadians, the better we will be. We do not want an election after the next budget. We want an election after four successive budgets. That would ensure that we stay in power for an awfully long time.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

When we resume discussion on the legislation, there will be four minutes left for questions and comments.

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.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

When the House broke for question period, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform had the floor for questions and comments. There are four minutes remaining in the period of questions or comments in relation to his speech.

I therefore call for questions and comments. The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to very briefly pose the question to the member prior to question period. I now have the direct information that is in today's National Post in regard to the comments of the member with regard to the general cynicism of Canadians with regard to the calling of elections.

Would the parliamentary secretary comment on the veracity of the story in today's National Post under the headline “Tories looking to pick a fight Expect a spring election, Cabinet insiders say”?

The article specifically says:

The election campaign for spring 2007 begins in earnest today. The working assumption among senior ministers in the [Prime Minister's] Cabinet is that the country will go to the polls after a Conservative budget; the legislative schedule that will be rolled out from today is designed to cram as much as possible into the shop window between now and then.

It also refers to the Conservatives “will attempt to engineer their own defeat in order to achieve the Prime Minister's stated ambition”.

This appears to be very clear. Has the member seen the story? Would he care to comment on what this does with respect to the sincerity of the government with regard to the bill which is presently before the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, all I can say to my hon. colleague from Mississauga South is he has clearly been watching too many Oliver Stone movies. He sees a conspiracy behind every initiative of the government.

Let me assure the member opposite that the government plans on governing and governing well. Quite frankly, as I answered about two hours ago after my initial comments, I believe that Canadians not only appreciate the initiatives of the government, but will reward the initiatives of the government.

The longer we govern, the more public support we will have. I see no need to comment on a story that, although the member opposite says is real, is only a rumoured deal that some National Post reporter perhaps came up with.

I am firmly convinced that the longer Canadians see us in action, the more they will reward us. If that member and members of the combined opposition care to take us down, that is when we will have an election, not before. It will be the decision of the members in opposition, certainly not the decision of this government.

[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--

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Which experts? Why don't you cite them?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is it possible for me to speak in the House without interruption?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

There's irony for you, Marlene. You're always interrupting people.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole]

Order, please. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine makes a valid point, that she should be able to finish her question in such a manner that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons can hear the question so he can give a good answer.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to have the Standing Orders of this House applied in a reasonable and objective manner.

My question is as follows: does the government member have an opinion on the views expressed by constitutional law experts that true fixed election dates, without any flexibility, would require a constitutional amendment?

[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.

[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.

[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, I will comment on my hon. colleague's question but I first want to finish my last thought before I sat down.

When voters know when an election will occur and can be certain about it, then they are less likely to be caught off guard. They can make preparations to vote even if they are out of the country. They could contact the local returning officer with their addresses if they are overseas or out of the riding, which could improve participation rates.

I thank my colleague for his endorsement of the principle behind the bill. As he knows, the Ontario government has adopted similar legislation, as has Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia. To the best of my knowledge, none of those jurisdictions have done anything to restrict the ability of the premier to indicate that a particular vote will be a vote of non-confidence.

If a piece of legislation were to put such a provision in place, that would take a constitutional convention of very long standing in our House, in every province in this country, and in Britain, the mother of Parliaments, and deviate from that. It is the precedent that continues to exist in Australia, in New Zealand and in every country and subnational unit that has the Westminster system. We would abandon that convention and move to something else.

In particular, we would move in a way that ensures the courts would be able to get involved in determining whether a vote of confidence was valid or whether a call for an election was valid. I think that is a dangerous thing to do.

If the member feels strongly about this, there is a solution within the current conventions. Let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that the present government or a future government is defeated on some matter of confidence. The opposition parties could try to get a vote of confidence in the government separately. In practice, voting non-confidence in the government's main policies and then indicating that they actually have confidence in the government, they would have to think about whether they want to do that, but that is one way of doing it.

Incidentally, I do not think it would work that way if the opposition parties tried to defeat the government on a money bill. I think the convention there is even more powerful, that Parliament's fundamental role is to provide supply to the government.

The other thing opposition parties need to consider is that if they do defeat the government they always have the option of trying to form a government themselves in cooperation with other parties, if they think they can do that. The member should keep that in mind.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about the legislation encouraging the opportunity to get a better quality of candidate. I am not sure how many persons who wanted to become Conservative candidates are now suing the Conservative Party because they were summarily thrown out for eligibility by the Conservative Party. However it appears that the Conservatives have forgotten that candidates are elected by the membership of the party. That is a part of the democratic process that we are trying to promote.

Why does the member think that the riding associations and the membership of any political party cannot pick a well qualified candidate?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is not germane to the substance of the bill, so I will take that more as a comment on political life in general rather than as something that requires a response from me.

[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—

[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.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, there was not too much in that speech that I think bears comment. However, it is important that we correct the record in terms of the Henry Milner paper that the hon. member was quoting from. Let me quote a few other paragraphs and see what she thinks. He says:

As noted, the commonly held assumption that fixed-date legislative elections are compatible only with presidential systems and thus incompatible with parliamentary systems such as ours is inaccurate. Yet this misconception is understandable, since any knowledge that Canadians possess of such matters is likely confined to Canada,--

He goes on to say:

The definition of a fixed system as one in which (as in the United States) nothing can be done to alter the date of the next legislative election is too narrow; it excludes any parliamentary system that allows for premature elections--as do almost all of them.

Further, he says:

In sum, even if they are not pure fixed-date in the American sense, these countries do not belong in the same (unfixed) category as Canada. The reality is that unlike Canada, the majority of countries with parliamentary or mixed regimes set a fixed date for their legislative elections, which is known and, as a rule, respected.

I wonder and it seems to me that she is borrowing something from the paper that is really not there. He is clearly saying that there are other forms of fixed date elections that fit well in parliamentary systems like Canada's.

[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.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, does the member disagree with the two Liberal governments in B.C. and Ontario that have just introduced fixed election dates and the fact that B.C. just ran an election based on a fixed date?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, B.C. has fixed flexible because while it stipulates that a general election will take place four years on such and such a date, it has mechanisms within its legislation to allow for premature dissolution. Therefore, it is not a fixed election date. It is fixed flexible.

If the hon. member cannot understand the distinction, then I would be more than happy to sit down with him when we have all the time in the world in the government lobby or in the opposition lobby, and spend 10 minutes, an hour, or two hours to explain to him the difference between fixed election date and fixed flexible.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have spent the last 10 to 15 minutes here listening to the member try to make a distinction between flexible and fixed and flexible fixed election dates. She has referred to the legislation as being duplicitous. She has accused the government of not telling the whole story, of not being honest, about being criminal, which I consider unparliamentary language, and deceptive.

In all of the comments she has made she has never once stated whether she supports the legislation. She should be listening to some of her colleagues in her own party who as recently as a few minutes ago stated that they strongly support this legislation.

I would encourage the member to come out clearly and state whether or not she is in favour of this legislation or is she opposed to electoral reform? Tell the Canadian people.

[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.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's comments and I certainly understand where she is coming from.

My concern, which is shared by her and she quite eloquently stated, is that sometimes the way we project things in the House reminds me of the time when I was a member of city council in Toronto. At that time we were getting bad news from Mike Harris' government at Queen's Park, many ministers of the Conservative government now sit in this House on the government side, and it tabled several pieces of legislation that were quite dangerous and even quite painful to the citizens of Toronto, but they were always sugar-coated with fancy words. I understand where my colleague is coming from. I support the direction and principle of the bill, but the fixed election date is, as my colleague says, a misnomer if it is not setting a fixed date.

I would like to have her comments on how she thinks we could correct the bill. Should it be called a bill to try to fix an election date?

[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.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Don Valley West, the Environment; the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Housing.

[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.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard two government members, the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission and the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's, talk to us about democratic deficit. The leader of the minority government in this House is about to go to the United Nations and speak for an entire country, specifically to announce Canada's foreign policy, but without having even consulted the opposition parties or trying to reach an agreement, a shared policy. If this is supposed to be democracy under a minority government, well then I've seen enough.

We are talking about fixed election dates, but by giving the opposition the power to bring down the government over a bill that ignores public opinion, only to then be able to accuse the opposition of having forced an election, this is what I call a democratic deficit created by a minority government.

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's said that we need time to gain public trust. Would it not be a good idea for a minority government to gain public trust by listening to the other parties elected by Canadians and Quebeckers to represent them, to try to adapt their policies? This measure could arouse public trust. Thus, we would not need an imaginary fixed election date, one that would not be real.

Does it not seem more sensible and credible to try to create an atmosphere of trust within Parliament first, and then with the public?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's comments, but I am not quite certain that he truly understood what I was saying earlier.

My point was quite simple. I think we increase confidence in the House and increase support from all Canadians in the procedure and what goes on in the House when they can fully understand that they will have a greater opportunity to participate and that the governing party will have less opportunity to manipulate the most important part of our democratic state and our democratic process. Canadians have the ability to re-elect governments or to defeat governments and make them go back to the people to have a decision made. That is the most important part of our democracy. Canadians get to choose.

By having an election every four years on a fixed date at a period of time, more people will be able to go to the polls. Students will be at school where they will be able to vote. They will not be travelling or working at a summer job away from their home. By encouraging activism in our voting patterns, by getting above that 65% mark, by allowing people to have some respect and confidence in this chamber, by leading instead of following, we will win back the respect of this House.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's comments on this issue, which I consider to be quite an important one. I, like him, share the importance of having a fixed election date. I think it is the right move for Canada to be pursuing.

We in the House all follow the Westminster tradition, but there are times when we want to be more Westminster than Westminster itself and think nothing can ever be changed here without changing some fundamental part of the Constitution or creating a crisis within the country. Although it is not technically for a fixed date because the Governor General still has powers and if the prime minister wishes to mandate a call for a confidence vote, he or she can do so in the House and then we could have an election, the principle is the right one. If we talk about the amount of money that is spent on election dates, it is--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. We may not have fixed election dates yet but we have a fixed time for question and answer period, and it has expired.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

[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.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord on her excellent presentation. She helped us to understand clearly the parliamentary situation concerning the holding of elections.

Nevertheless, I wonder if it isn’t rather wishful thinking for a minority government to present this bill. Indeed, it cannot really be applied in the case of a minority government. In the final analysis, is it not simply a sort of tactic for throwing the blame on the opposition for not supporting important bills, worthy of the confidence of the House and for putting all the pressure on the opposition parties who would not vote in favour of the government? In that way, the government could cause an early election, contrary to the provisions that we find in the bill.

Given the long parliamentary experience of my colleague, I would like to hear her speak about the situation of a minority government that could force the hand of the opposition parties to maintain the government in power.

[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.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments and she clearly understands politics. We all know what is at the base of all this.

I certainly think that four years would be a nice idea. In seven years I have had four election campaigns as well. I would like to go to a fixed date.

The member mentioned the financing issues and the pressure. Given the implications of previous legislation that financed the party, that should eliminate that part of the problem.

What other amendments would you like to see in the bill because clearly--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I would just remind the member for York West, which has happened a couple of times today on the first day back, that we should not be addressing each other in the second person. The member should be asking me what the hon. member thinks, rather than asking her directly.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess we have all been away for a nice summer.

If the loophole were to remain does the hon. member think that it would also be at the discretion of the government to call an election regardless of a term or not?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill should be studied thoroughly. I have not done so yet but I will over the next few days. We should also hear from witnesses because they are the people who can tell us legislators exactly what should and should not be in the bill. Can it be improved? Should it be amended? I have confidence in these people.

We will be able to examine all parts of it in committee and make it a really serious bill. As the hon. member said a little while ago, there have been four election campaigns in seven years. It is very difficult, therefore, to find funds, volunteers, and so forth. Personally, I have been through five elections in 13 years. People can hardly believe it when I say that I have been through five elections. Fixed election dates would bring much greater stability to our organization and funding. We have to get back to that.

Let the committee do its work. I have confidence in the committee. There will be people from all the parties and that is where we can amend the bill.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her presentation, on the hope she expressed that we will have fixed mandates or fixed election dates, and on the confidence she has in politicians as a whole.

Would it not be appropriate, therefore, to ask the government to define what a vote of confidence is so that it cannot fall back on any old excuse for requesting one? Maybe this would raise the profile of elections and Canadians would show more confidence in them.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a suggestion from my colleague. It is not written down anywhere, of course, but we generally know very well that there is a vote of confidence on the budget here in the House of Commons.

The government can obviously decide any time that there will be a vote of confidence on any given bill. That is happening now in the case of softwood lumber. It would certainly be possible to ensure that there cannot be a vote of confidence on any bill at any time. This should be studied by a committee, though, and we must ensure that the process is democratic. This question should therefore be examined. It is possible. It would enable Parliament to do its work instead of always preparing for elections in the middle of winter or summer.

All these factors will have to be studied when the bill is brought before the committee. I am pretty sure that there will be representations from various groups. These delegations will come and tell us how they see these things and we can make amendments. Then we will see what the government decides to do with it and we can debate it again in the House of Commons.

For the time being, I think that it is a good idea. It will also enable my two colleagues behind me to catch their breath because they have been through two elections one after the other and they are two new members. This is very difficult to go through when a person is first entering politics. In short, I think that we really should be able to have fixed dates and four years is a very reasonable period.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. I agree totally with the member that three elections in seven years is very hard for a new member like me. I wonder, though, if she thinks that the last year might not become a lame duck year, as quite often happens in American politics. With the Americans' fixed dates, the last year is seen as a lame duck year, when the government does not really have any authority to act and not a lot gets done except politicking.

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

Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether we have fixed election dates or not, we are still stuck with a lame duck three years into the mandate. This will change nothing, because everyone knows that elections will be held within six months, or the following year, or two years later, because a mandate can last up to five years. I do not think this will change much.

The four-year fixed term would change things: it would make it possible for us to develop better structure and get organized in the ridings. It would also give us the freedom to do our work as parliamentarians until the end. This would enable us to work together to decide what we think is important in this or that bill, and then to focus exclusively on the election when the time comes, which is not currently the case. We are always organizing, looking for an office just in case an election is called. We are forced to do two jobs at once, and we cannot focus on our parliamentary work.

We could get a lot more work done in Parliament if we had fixed election dates every four years. Things that move very slowly right now would progress much more rapidly. We could get our real work done here and concentrate on our campaigns for a short time when the election rolls around. That way, we could stop wearing everyone out, including ourselves. That way, we could get things done like we are supposed to and do a better job of legislating here in Ottawa.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we definitely cannot oppose virtue. It is very clear that holding elections on a set date, every four years, is an excellent and marvellous idea. We have been told about all the other countries with such a system. However, at present, is it realistic to think about having elections every four years when election results in Canada—and I might add throughout the world—are closer and closer and result more often than not in minority governments?

I would like to know if the honourable member who just spoke truly believes that, in a minority government situation, we could have elections every four years. How would he do that? If the government lasts three and a half years, two and a half years or one and a half years, would we go as long as four and a half years and change months? If elections are always held in October, then that means we will have elections in three and a half years or in four and a half years. I would like some clarification on this because I do not believe we will be able to have elections on set dates.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has made an important point. We have had in the history of our country a number of minority governments. I believe the average length of those minority governments has been 18 months.

Throughout the history of our country and Parliament we have never had fixed election dates. Therefore, to suggest that a minority government could not last four years is a bit premature. I think it is possible with the understanding that we would need to work together, as all parties in the House should do with a minority government. It would take that effort.

I would also point out that even with a majority government and no fixed election dates, we have not always lived true to that four year timeframe. In fact, the last two majority governments have not lasted throughout the four year period of time.

I think we could suggest on the one hand, with a minority government, that we need to work together obviously to reach that point. As my colleague mentioned earlier, there is rationale built in upon us as to why a motion of confidence may come forward, but I would not like to rule out the fact that a minority government could work within the process of a four year mandate.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member and some other hon. members who have spoken about the issues and the importance of fixed elections. This is a very important principle that I certainly support in terms of the cost savings effect and the importance of a day in October that would actually allow more people to vote because students are in school.

Although I support the legislation and the concept of fixed election dates, I am concerned about the fact that the Prime Minister has stated constantly in the House and before the public his willingness to have an election at any moment on any given issue. The Prime Minister seems to be almost going against the spirit of the legislation. I do not want to use the word bullying but he seems to be constantly threatening the House with an election. That goes against all the arguments we have been making in this House about cost savings and about making sure that an election is held at the right time of the year so all people can participate and not just students who are at school.

I would like to have a comment from my hon. colleague on how he feels the Prime Minister has been acting toward the legislation.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would extend my compliments to my colleague for his support of the legislation. He has done a very good job in the time that he has had to explain that the legislation is necessary and that it is something he supports. I think that suggests in a minority government that good legislation will be supported and should be supported by any member of the House.

In terms of responding to his question with respect to the Prime Minister's position, the Prime Minister has stated over and over again that he has no intentions of having this government brought down for any reason whatsoever. What he has indicated, if the opposition is prepared in a motion of confidence to not support the government, that he is prepared to call an election and go to the voters of this country again. However, let us be clear that his mission and our mission as a government has been stated very clearly and directly: We are here to govern, not to bring governments down. We are here to build governments up.

[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--

[The Deputy Speaker, 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 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.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member across the way as he gave his speech and made his comments. Certainly, I am not surprised that he is supporting the bill that has been put forward in the House. This is a good bill and it is part of our strategy as a new government to fix some of the wrongs of the past. I look forward to more progressive legislation coming forward in the House.

I want to ask the member a question in relation to fixed election dates. The member talked about different issues in his constituency and the concerns he had. When the member talks with his constituents, does he feel that they would like to see fixed election dates and this legislation passed? What feedback is the member receiving from his constituents?

When I talk with my constituents, they want to see fixed election dates. Many of them think that having five elections in seven years is a waste of taxpayer dollars. People look at this as playing games.

What feedback is the member getting from his own riding? Is that the type of feedback he is getting? Is that why he is here today supporting the bill and hoping to see the bill pass in the House?

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with my constituents and most of them want fixed term election dates.

The problem arises that there are many issues that could stop that. For example, I have been here two years and we have had two elections. Most of my constituents do not want to spend a billion dollars of Canadians' hard earned dollars within three years for elections that produce an ineffective minority such as that.

They are looking for a long term election date. When we talk about a fixed date, my comments were that we want to send the bill to committee to ensure that we have an opportunity and the government has an opportunity to have the good work of the opposition to improve the bill that has been put forth.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Oak Ridges—Markham for a tremendously passionate speech. I wanted to hear more about what was upcoming in Oak Ridges—Markham and I might catch him in the lobby and find out about that event in October.

On this issue I agree with him. I am a fan of fixed election dates for many reasons. We all recall when we first get elected, when we first run for office. It is hard, particularly for people in business who do not know when the next election will be, to plan our life and our family's life around an election. Being a nominated candidate is not always easy. It is easier as a Liberal than as a Conservative, I suspect, but it is not always easy identifying one's colours in advance and it is hard planning.

The bill closes the gap between the incumbents and the challengers. I like it for that reason. In general it is democratic, but I do have a concern that has been expressed before that the bill has to be amended so we know what confidence means. If we have elections every four years because we believe that they should be, then what determines confidence? What matters determine confidence? Is it a money bill, a budget bill? Who determines what confidence is?

Could my colleague give us his thoughts about that. Would it make it a better bill if we knew exactly what would trigger an election from the government's point of view? A clear vote of confidence on a budget we understand. What other issues should be considered matters of confidence?

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, October 4 is a good day to have an election date. That is my birthday and I do not mind taking the day off to cast my ballot.

In terms of my hon. colleague's question, I believe that if there is a vote of confidence, it should not be hastily taken in the House at any time at the whim of the prime minister whether it be the current Prime Minister or any prime minister in the upcoming years, hopefully soon.

I consider budget bills as a vote of confidence as well as money bills, but there is more. When the prime minister goes to the Governor General and asks her to dissolve Parliament, it leaves a lot more than just us voting here and having the government overturned or not giving it the vote of confidence. We need to pay particular attention to that and defining it in committee. In all sincerity we need to have the wisdom of the opposition to make the bill a great one.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have three quick comments related to the month of October. In my riding we have fixed municipal elections in October and I know the objective of the bill is not to overlap, so I want to have that on the record.

Also, if it is the first week in October and go back to the beginning of the election, that would take away Labour Day. Summer is short enough in my riding and I do not want to lose another holiday. People would not want to lose the Labour Day holiday.

Finally, because summer is so important in our ridings, having the date in October at least does not take away the rest of the summer. Maybe the member could talk about some of the important things that happened in his riding this summer.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding we were working on rural mail delivery with Canada Post. Canadian business owners in my riding are interested in finding out how to do with business with the Canadian government. I have asked Public Works and Government Services to hold a seminar in my riding. We are trying to work with businesses interested in emerging economies. However, in terms of October, in some parts of the country October is a--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. The time for orders of the day has expired, but I congratulate the hon. member for working as a team with his members to try to do indirectly what I asked him not to do directly.

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.

[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.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has indicated his support for electoral reform to restore the confidence of the people in our Parliament. I heartily support that as well.

During the summer I heard many of my constituents express some cynicism about what the government is actually doing through this electoral reform when they hear the Prime Minister invoke confidence votes whenever he has seen his numbers looking favourable.

Would the member opposite support the NDP proposal for an amendment to tighten the definition of confidence votes in the House?

[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.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, historically on the issue of fixed election dates, the government when it was in opposition talked about the fact that the previous government was threatening to have votes of confidence on various issues. The government said then that it should be narrowed down to only a few issues.

I would suggest that the Speech from the Throne and the budget are the only two areas where votes of confidence should occur. Obviously the Speech from the Throne outlines the program of government and the budget gives government the fiscal tools to implement that Speech from the Throne.

In its legislation, the government talks about fixed election dates on the one hand, but on the other hand the government is constantly throwing up straw men by suggesting that the vote on softwood lumber, on Afghanistan or something else could be a vote of confidence.

Does the hon. member agree with my view that the votes on the Speech from the Throne and the budget should really be the only votes of confidence because they test whether the government in fact has the will of the House on these two critical issues? Or does he believe that there should be others? Again, does the member believe that there should be a very prescribed approach rather than this knee-jerk reaction, which we have often heard from the government now that it is in power, that every time it feels threatened it will call an election because the government is obviously looking for an excuse to go to the people?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I concur with my hon. colleague's comments. If anything, we should try in any way possible to limit those times that the Prime Minister can in fact deem something to be a vote of confidence. It seems, at first glance, that certainly financial issues, in particular the budget, should be a vote of confidence. This has been the tradition of the House. I believe it is the Westminster tradition as well that an election should be called when a government falls due to a vote of confidence or lack of confidence in the House on the budget bill. I think the throne speech is also a major initiative.

Beyond that I would hope that by moving forward on this bill the Prime Minister would change his tone in the House in terms of when an election should be called, as well as his behaviour in terms of deeming everything to be a vote of confidence and threatening an election whenever he finds that the polls are going well for him. That is not the way to behave. If we are to be true to the spirit of this legislation, then we should try to make sure we live by it. There should be very specific issues on which a vote of confidence can be called, such as the budget issues, and nothing else beyond that.

[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.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening closely. I like what I hear and it makes a lot of sense, but I have a real concern about fixed dates. I think back to 1988, when municipal and federal elections took place at the same time. At that time, the government fell and elections went on. My concern is that I do not see anything in the bill, and I hope there will be an amendment, so that this would not happen.

My big fear is that at some point the federal government will fall due to non-confidence during a time when there is a municipal election. Municipal elections now are scheduled every four years in Ontario. What would happen then is that in perpetuity, until the next non-confidence vote takes place, we would have elections happening at the same time at the municipal level and the federal level. The same thing can happen at the provincial level, because Ontario now has a fixed date. It all depends on when that non-confidence vote happens. My big concern is that we would have two levels of government having elections at the same time and it would cause a lot of confusion.

What we are trying to do is mix a congressional system, like those in the United States and other countries, with a parliamentary system. I have a concern when we start blending those two things and do not look at the consequences, because we solve one problem but we may cause 500 more. That is my concern. Other than that, I really do not have a problem with fixed date elections. Maybe the member can comment on what we can do to prevent that from happening.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague, which is very interesting. My hon. colleague has spoken about how this works very well in the province of British Columbia. We in Saskatchewan do not have fixed election dates. I think it would be a great benefit for our province. We know when the municipal elections are and we know when they are going to be held. Non-confidence is always something that we cannot work around, but I think this whole bill would start to make a very positive change at the federal level in this country.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about the election dates being fixed and how governments have at the moment discretionary power in order to call an election at their whim for political purposes. I certainly agree with that, except that in the beginning of the bill it states that the Governor General still has discretionary power to dissolve Parliament.

The government of course can go to the Governor General and say that this was a vote of confidence. The bill does not define what is a vote of confidence. Is it only going to be, as I suggest it should be, on the Speech from the Throne and on the budget?

Governments still have the power to dissolve Parliament based on what they perceive to be a vote of confidence. If the government is really serious about fixed election dates it will define that. Otherwise, by saying that in fact we are going to have a fixed election date four years from now does not prohibit in the interim this government or any government in the future from calling an election based on a perceived vote of confidence.

That is the weakness I see in the bill. Neither the government House leader nor members of the government have been able to address that, which to me is window dressing and not dealing with the real issue. The real issue is how to prevent an election from happening either by accident or still by design by a government, which the member claims she does not support.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who was first elected to this place in 2000 and has undergone three election campaigns I think the bill is a huge step toward making a rational decision to help Canadians, to save money, and to put some common sense back into the whole issue of election dates. I think that common sense is having an election every four years and not on the whim and call of the Prime Minister. Non-confidence votes are always based on money bills and I think that is something opposition parties will have to look at.

[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.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am old enough to remember wearing a button that said “Canada's NDP: The only party with policies worth stealing”. Therefore, I am delighted to see that the Conservatives have finally seen the wisdom of that saying and have adopted at least one of the pieces that was part of Ed Broadbent's package for true democratic reform.

The member concluded by saying that theirs was a modest step forward. Could he explain to the voters, who are concerned about things such as the musical chairs by the member for Vancouver Kingsway or the member for Newmarket—Aurora, why that reform stops short of actually dealing with other democratic reforms such as banning floor-crossing, bringing in proportional representation and adding new transparency to leadership races in our country?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the urgency and the desire for the member opposite to increase the amount of democratic reform that this place needs. I suggest that one step at a time is the way to go. To put all these things into one omnibus bill would surely result in greater opposition than what we experience when we bring in legislation one at a time. I encourage her and her party to stand behind this initiative and help it pass.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see the government talking about making our democratic process work better to serve the interests of all Canadians. However, there are many commonsense practices that exist now, outside of these legislative changes, that would also further that goal. One of them is to hold true consultation processes.

Recently the government supposedly held a consultation process on post-secondary education. The closing date happened to be the date when students returned to university. It was held during the summer and it failed to advise many of the stakeholders of this consultation process.

Would the government commit to a real consultation process rather than the kind of sham that was held this summer on post-secondary education?

[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.

[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, perhaps the member did not listen closely to what I had to say. He quotes me as saying that I said snap election dates were out. That is not the case.

This morning the member repeated that question time and time again. He has received his answers, yet he does not seem to be satisfied with the answers he gets from the government. Perhaps he could pose a new question, one that is a bit more novel than the one he has asked.

Let me assure him that the proposed legislation can only go so far without reforming the Constitution. We have moved as far as we could to bring in the stability that this place requires and that Canadians expect.

[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.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to our colleague, and I found that he raised some excellent and very interesting points about democratizing the decision-making process, which in his view is currently dominated by the cynical use of power on the part of the party in power or the Prime Minister.

We know that during elections, the parliamentary process is blocked. It affects our ridings too. Plenty of things get put on the back burner. I find it has a huge impact on what we are trying to do for our constituents.

I think that when the election date is unknown, we often drop certain issues the moment the election is called so we can prepare for the campaign. Then we campaign for two or two and a half months before we can get back to work. Then another three or four months go by before the government ministers are ready to deal with their portfolios.

In reality, average citizens looking on and paying our salaries can expect to wait seven to nine months before their issues are addressed.

I would like to know what our NDP colleague thinks about this. Does he think that fixed election dates would have an impact on the service we provide to our constituents?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as an aside, perhaps we all knew when elections were coming before because the money would start flying like no tomorrow from various ministers. They would be shoveling it out the train or plane depending on where they lived and we would know an election was coming.

We saw in this town and across the country that things came to a standstill around the time there was a perception of an election coming and files were not moved. In this past election, because it was a fairly long period, things were not getting done and, as a result, service to Canadians was affected negatively.

I personally believe that fixed election dates, particularly when it would occur just after summer vacations and when business is done throughout the land, people could begin ratcheting up their campaigns before the actual election date, which is common.

However, I do not think the business of the country will come to a standstill. People will understand and accept that an election is happening and that the government will no longer be able to manipulate it and, if it does, it will be in what I will call the public square. Everyone will be saying that we are throwing more money at something or we are going to stranglehold the bureaucracy by not allowing it to do anything because there is an election coming.

I personally think what should happen is what has happened in other jurisdictions that have brought in fixed election dates. It will make government more effective, more comprehensive and will, hopefully, avoid what we have seen in the past, which is the manipulation by the Prime Minister's Office, the executive branch or the bureaucracy simply for its own pursuit of power.

[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?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I would remind members, as I did yesterday, to address their remarks to each other through the Chair and not use the second person but the third person.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my comments, something we can look at in committee is the setting of some criteria as to what is a confidence vote. However, with this legislation and this concept of fixed election dates, as we see this with the present government, this will take the rug out from under it, the strategy of trying to orchestrate a non-confidence vote simply to get a majority, as we have seen with previous governments.

In other words, if the bill were to pass and we do have fixed election dates, Canadians will question why the government would try to play brokerage politics, playing one region off the other simply to have a government fall and then gain a majority.

We all know, let us be honest that is the elephant in the room, that the government is simply looking for a way to orchestrate the fall of Parliament, particularly while one party is going through a leadership process. It may be a strategy it learned from another political party, I do not know, but that will be known to Canadians who will ask why the government is orchestrating the fall of Parliament when we have a fixed election date two or three years hence.

There are two criteria. One is that we can look at making amendments and set criteria for confidence, if that is possible. The second is that Canadians are smart and they will see when they are being manipulated. If there is a fixed election date and we have a government that is cynically trying to cause the fall of Parliament simply to get a majority, it will pay the price.

If we take a look at that in combination with the fact that this is the beginning and not the end of electoral reform, this is something we should embrace. We can see how we can make it better in committee and that is why my party will be supporting it.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP supports the idea of fixed election dates. It was part of our seven point platform on accountability, which was to bring true electoral change and reform to Parliament.

The member talked about many points but the one I want to focus on is proportional representation. A previous opposition member spoke about a referendum that was held in British Columbia where 59% of the population supported proportional representation in some form. My caucus and members of my party through their good work have supported that. We know that in the general public there is an appetite to see true electoral reform.

Would my colleague go into somewhat more of the merits of proportional representation and inform the House of some of the things that can be achieved with true proportional representation and true electoral reform?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer my colleague's excellent question, I should answer the second point raised by my previous colleague about this being a kind of an American style reform.

I simply suggest that the member take a look at the reference in my speech to the work that has been done by Professor Milner. He takes a look at the fact that it is not only the United States but that many other jurisdictions have successfully embraced fixed election dates, fixed but flexible. The American system does not have that flexibility. We would have the flexibility and it honours the Westminster tradition.

As to my colleague's question on proportional representation, we need to honour the voters of this country with a system that is fair. What we do not have presently is a fair system. It was referenced earlier that we have a system that was created back in the 18th century and obviously needs reform. We have seen reform in every other jurisdiction. Every other mature democracy, save two, have embraced some form of proportional representation. Why? It is because it is more democratic.

I would suggest to the House and to Canadians that this is not something that needs to be studied. We need to go to Canadians and have a citizens assembly, as has been done in other jurisdictions. We must provide these citizens with some of these ideas and hear from them what they think makes sense.

We proposed that process, by the way, as something we were going to follow in the last Parliament. Sadly, the government abandoned that commitment. I would like to see that embraced in this Parliament and discussed with Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, from the outset, as the House leader of the Bloc Québécoisand the deputy leader said yesterday, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill in principle. However, we do have some comments.

This bill is like many bills that seek to improve how the federal system works. They sometimes add to our difficulties as sovereignist members in this place. Many of our constituents tell us when we meet with them that we are not here to improve the federal system.

I want to tell my fellow Quebeckers that the Bloc Québécois remains a resolutely sovereignist party. Until Quebeckers say yes to themselves, Quebec will work within a British parliamentary system. Incidentally, the same is true in the Quebec National Assembly. The British parliamentary system that is in force here means that sovereignist members represent Quebec, and until we achieve sovereignty, if improvements can be made to the way the parliamentary system works, we will make them. I wanted to make that clear so that the Bloc Québécois is not accused of improving how the system works and turning its back on sovereignty as an option.

With this bill on fixed election dates, Canada will join the ranks of countries that have adopted the same principle, countries with a clear democratic tradition such as Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg and the United States. In Canada, three provinces have passed legislation providing for fixed election dates: British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Ontario.

In Quebec, this is nothing new. For decades, it has been customary to hold elections on fixed dates for what I would call lower levels of government. I cannot think of any other term for this, but I am referring to different levels of government, such as the municipal level. I want to be careful what I say, especially since we have in our ranks the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, the former president of the Union des municipalités du Québec. I would not want him to accuse me of implying that municipal elected officials are lower or inferior in any way, during the upcoming period of questions and comments.

Fortunately I have just had a stroke of genius and found with a synonym. I am talking about the municipal level as a different and very important level of government. I should know since, before being elected here, I was municipal councillor for Boischatel, in Côte-de-Beaupré where I live. I still live in Boischatel and I am a proud Boischatelois. I can tell you that working in a municipal government is not a prerequisite for working in the federal government or at the Quebec legislature. It is nonetheless an asset and I am proud of the years I spent at the municipal level.

In Quebec we already have fixed-date elections at the municipal level every four years. In the past two or three years, the Government of Quebec has harmonized these elections because there were still some municipalities that held their elections on different dates. Now in Quebec, municipal elections are held the first Sunday in November every four years. My memory fails me but I believe that our school boards in Quebec also have fixed-date elections.

This has been going on for decades, as I was saying. This has not hindered the accountability of the elected representatives or democracy in general.

We believe that the main advantage of this bill will be eliminating the prerogative of the party in power—I will go a bit further—the prerogative of the Prime Minister.

When Jean Chrétien was the Liberal leader and Prime Minister he used to say that it was his wife Aline who chose the election dates. This was done very privately. Mr. Chrétien, a dramatic man, told us the story somewhat like this: he would get up in the morning and be shaving in front of the bathroom mirror when suddenly Aline would appear and tell him not to arrange any more appointments, to go see the Governor General and ask that an election be called. It went a little something like that.

Apparently the prerogative of the party in power is a rather secretive decision.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Spousal.

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

My colleague from Hochelaga is suggesting that it is a spousal decision. Nonetheless, it is a rather secretive decision and is more or less the Prime Minister's prerogative.

The leader of the government, the leader of the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister, probably remembers how former Prime Minister Chrétien legally exercised his prerogative and took advantage of whatever situation certain opposition parties were in.

I would remind the House of the facts. On March 15, 1997, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was elected leader of the Bloc Québécois. An election was held two and a half months later, on June 2, 1997, called by former Prime Minister Chrétien.

He repeated the same strategy in 2000. On July 8, 2000, the current Minister of Public Safety was elected leader of the Canadian Alliance, one of the many names of a party that changed names frequently, in search of its identity.

I recall from my law practice that requesting a name change is relatively easy and lucrative. That party often changed names. At that time, however, it was the Canadian Alliance. The current Minister of Public Safety was chosen to lead the party on July 8, 2000. Five months later, Prime Minister Chrétien called an election for November 27, 2000.

The leader of the Conservative Party, who is the current Prime Minister, was elected leader on March 20, 2004. The former Prime Minister, whose name I cannot mention since he is still the member for LaSalle—Émard for a few more weeks, called an election to be held on June 28, 2004, three months after the election of the Conservative Party leader. It was an opportunity for barely legal tricks aimed at furthering a possible division or realignment within a party that had just chosen a new leader.

We feel that this did not serve democracy, which is why we like the fact that this bill removes the for the party in power's prerogative to call an election whenever it would be most politically advantageous for that party.

An election will now be a sure thing, exactly as it is in the United States. If you would like to try a little exercise, ask any grade 6 class on what date the American election of 2092 will be held. They need only look at a calendar. Everyone knows that the election is held every four years. This removes the possibility of playing games or engaging in political manipulation.

This principle places all the parties on a more equal footing. The party in power no longer has an organizational advantage because only they know when the elections will take place. All parties democratically represented in the House, and even registered parties without parliamentarians, would be playing by the same rules. I believe there are 21 registered parties in Canada.

We also believe that this bill would make it easier for more people to participate in the electoral process, whether as supporters, election workers or even voters. The issue of motivation and advertising by the Chief Electoral Officer could create a certain buzz among voters, with the goal of increasing voter participation.

Over the past 20 years there has been a decline in voter turnout in Canada. I believe there was a slight increase of a few tenths of a point during the 2006 elections even though they were held on January 23. The strong trend over the past 20 years has been a decline in voter turnout. This is worrisome.

Our fellow citizens can be grouped into certain categories. There are citizens who have lost interest in public affairs and who no longer vote. Unfortunately, when we have gone door-to-door and regardless of whether or not an election campaign is underway—Bloc Québécois members have a reputation for being visible not just during election campaigns and, as the whip, I receive my colleagues' schedules and I can confirm that the 50 Bloc Québécois members are known to have a strong presence in their community—our fellow citizens have told us over the years that they will no longer vote. They feel it is useless and that it makes no difference if the government is Liberal or Conservative. They will no longer vote.

This is worrisome in a democracy. We must find ways of increasing voter turnout.

The result of having fixed election dates would be to enhance the effectiveness of the work done by parliamentarians, since committees would then have an opportunity to plan their work schedules better. Certainly some parliamentary work is done in this House of Commons, but we must also not forget the work done by the standing committees, the equivalent of parliamentary committees, sometimes called commissions, in Quebec. Here, they are standing committees. We have 26 of those committees, and they do fantastic work and deal with a huge work load, whether by approving bills on second reading or in the special studies they do. Unfortunately, people too often see only the work that is done here in the House.

Sometimes we have visitors. People sit in the galleries and are surprised to see that there are not more members in the House. What I tell them then, and I take this opportunity to tell the people who are watching us on television, is that you must not base your impressions solely on the number of people physically sitting here. If my memory serves me, there are 16 or 17 committees meeting on a Tuesday. Our members of Parliament, who are not blessed with the ability to be in two places at once, cannot be in the House and at a committee meeting. That does not mean that members are not working, even if they are not physically present in the House. Too often, people consider only the work done in the House of Commons.

If committees knew that elections would be held on fixed dates, they could organize their work accordingly and could avoid initiating an extensive study, knowing that elections would take place in seven months, and that it would demand a lot of work. Conversely, they could start work earlier on an extensive study, knowing that elections would take place in a year and a half or two years.

Another consequence of this bill is that when the time did come, the public would be in a better position to evaluate the track record of the party in power, the party chosen in the election campaign to form the government.

We would be in a position to use better judgment when exercising the right to vote. As well, knowing it would soon have to face the dangers of the polls, a government would be more inclined to make tough decisions, decisions that might be unpopular but that are necessary. A government could decide to go ahead, and, because there were fixed election dates, tell itself that the public would be able to judge its actions.

In addition, the opposition's approach to its work would change. Knowing that the government had a fixed term, the opposition would opt for different approaches and would contribute positively to the bills before the House. One of the roles of the opposition is to be the critic of the government.

The Bloc Québécois has taken on the responsibility of not acting simply as a critic for the joy of criticizing or the joy of saying that what the government is bringing in makes no sense. When we think that the government is bringing in things that that make no sense, we say so. However, when we think that the government is bringing in things that are serious or reasonable, that could be improved, we voice constructive criticism.

In my view, the softwood lumber agreement on which we are going to vote at 3:15 this afternoon is a good example. The Bloc Québécois still believes that a billion dollars are missing from the American trust fund. We consulted with working people in the regions. The leader of the Bloc Québécois and our critics for industry and international trade toured exhaustively in the regions. We consulted people in the pulp and paper industry. They tell us that this is not necessarily a good agreement but they want us to ratify it anyway.

From a purely partisan standpoint, we could vote against the agreement because it was signed by a Conservative international trade minister, who used to be a Liberal minister—but that is another story. But after consulting, we decided that we would support it. We are therefore providing constructive criticism, and this is why the Bloc Québécois still wants an assistance plan. In any case, though, that is not the purpose of my speech and questions could be raised about the relevance of what I am saying.

This principle would also make it easier for Elections Canada, the parties, and the candidates to plan for election campaigns and ultimately might well improve them and possibly reduce their cost. That is a major point.

I am currently vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, just testified before this committee. When we do our election post-mortems and ask all our caucus colleagues to tell us about problems with the implementation of the Elections Act, Mr. Kingsley or one of the members of his team always shows up with a notebook. They certainly do listen because after I speak in the House, I sometimes receive e-mails or telephone calls from them. They do not always agree, or they provide further clarification.

At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we are occasionally critical, and quite rightly so, of the Chief Electoral Officer and the Elections Canada team. Sometimes, however, in view of the short deadlines involved, we must bear in mind that the Chief Electoral Officer could have difficulty getting his election preparations quite right. I would think he would like fixed election dates because he would always know where he stood since he would be aware of the exact date of the next election, for example in 2009.

I have been signalled that I have only a minute left and will finish up as follows: in general, this bill will help to fix some contradictory situations that currently arise. We in the Bloc Québécois support the basic principle. If the bill passes and works well, who will be the ultimate winner? I think it will be democracy and also the respect that citizens have—citizens who decide through their vote who will represent them in the House of Commons.

The Bloc Québécois legitimately represents its constituents. Everyone in this House, regardless of whether or not they like the individual who was elected, must respect democracy and the persons chosen in a democratic election by the people of Quebec and Canada.

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, who was President of the Union des municipalités du Québec, but I forgot to mention my Liberal colleague for Toronto Centre, who is a former President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I hope I did not commit a serious faux pas by forgetting to point out his presence, but I am sure that other Liberal members took care of that during the debate.

The member highlighted something that the Bloc Québécois has been giving a lot of thought to. I am not prepared to announce an amendment at this stage today. Let us remember that we are only talking about adopting the principle underlying the bill, and that it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where we will study it thoroughly. However, the flaw that my Liberal colleague just pointed out is obvious. I am sure the issue would be resolved if there is an amendment, but if there is no amendment, we know that holding elections at fixed intervals would put additional pressure on any government that might try to ignore this.

We have to give this some thought. When the time comes, we will have the opportunity to state our position on any amendment put forward by my colleague or members of his party or even by members of my party. Nevertheless, I would reiterate that we want constructive opposition and that this bill, like most bills introduced in the House, has some room for improvement.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the issues that are raised by this bill and the direction it is going fundamentally speak to the nature of the political system we work in. This political system has been characterized in the last while by minority governments, by a call by people for proportional representation.

The bill purports to set out a timeframe which really is not binding on the Governor General or the government of the time, but really we are all elected to govern here and the bill needs to be taken in that context. There is room for amendment here, to look at how we can ensure that the will of the people, expressed through their elected representatives, has an opportunity to work within a fixed timeframe.

Would the member opposite look at amendments that could ensure that others in the House, in a fixed period, would have the opportunity to form government in the case of a confidence vote in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, the minority government situation changes things a bit.

Even in a majority government, if enough government members are absent, the government could lose the confidence of the House. It could happen, but it is unlikely. The problem remains, and we will have to pay particular attention to it. I think we still have time to come back with constructive ideas before the bill is passed.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I also appreciate his support for common sense legislation that Canadian taxpayers willingly support for the benefit of all Canadians.

This includes Canadians living in the lovely province of Quebec.

I also appreciated his clarification of his party's raison d'être and I would ask him this simple question. Given that he supports what the government and this Parliament are doing in this regard, would he take that word back to his constituents and his party's constituents in Quebec, that this Parliament and government are working in the area of democratic reform to the benefit of Quebeckers and all other Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member should avoid dreaming in technicolor and come back down to earth. The member needs to keep his feet on the ground.

I should say something about weekends and the parliamentary recess. It must be said, and I do so as a non-partisan comment, that on Monday members of all parties did not return from a vacation that began June 22. We were not on vacation. We spent some time with our families because we are human beings and we do need a little rest. However, we continued to work in our respective ridings.

Fixed-date elections are not something that preoccupies the voters of Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord on a daily basis. This summer, the people were talking about the government’s position on the war in Afghanistan, about their hopes that the Kyoto protocol would be respected and the Prime Minister’s position on the bombardment of south Lebanon and about many other subjects such as the higher price of gasoline. Those are the subjects that the voters are concerned about.

I do not need to say how good this Conservative government is in wanting to improve the democratic process by means of fixed-date elections. The government needs rather to be concerned with settling the most pressing problems. I believe it needs to increase its credibility because this summer the government’s credibility was at its lowest point.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. As many members have already stated, a degree of cynicism has made its way into our Canadian democratic system. If I understand correctly, the purpose of this bill is to restore the confidence of Canadians and Quebeckers. However, I believe that Canadians are concerned about a party that is pledged to break up our Canadian federal parliamentary system. I put this question to the member: how does the Bloc propose to restore the confidence of those Quebeckers who see their future in a strong Quebec, but within Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe my NDP colleague could have benefited from walking around the streets of our ridings and talking with some ordinary people during the NDP convention two weeks ago. She should have gone out of the Concorde hotel, the Quebec convention centre and the Hilton hotel.

There is a very strong desire in Quebec to manage our own affairs. We are saying that sovereignty will not be a vote against the people of British Columbia. We are going to say “Yes” to ourselves. According to the polls, between 48% and 52% of the population shares that view. What more can I say? The desire to manage your own affairs is not against anyone else; it is for yourself. It is exactly like a young couple that decides to live together. Do they ask permission from the butcher, the grocer or anyone else? They do not even ask permission of their parents. A young man may tell his mother that he loves her. She does his laundry and cleans his room, but he has decided to spread his wings and leave the nest. That is what freedom is.

[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.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his intervention the hon. member brings to the House some of the historical relevance of what has happened in other governments. The member will know that clause 1 of the bill basically says that nothing in the bill will affect the responsibilities under the Constitution of the Governor General, commonly referred to as the royal prerogative.

For the clarification of the House and for Canadians, maybe the member would care to comment on whether, if the bill were in place, it would necessarily mean that we would have elections every fourth year. Or would the bill provide the flexibility and latitude that in certain circumstances the Governor General may call for an election and dissolve Parliament because of other circumstances such as, for instance, the death of a prime minister or war or insurrection?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to suggest that there is any slim chance the next election may not be in October of 2009, but I do think the member raises a good point. I would be the last person to ever engage in either parliamentary questions or issues of the Constitution with the member for Mississauga South, but the concern of course is that, yes, the way the bill is written, there is still every opportunity that the government could force an early election if it felt that was to its advantage.

Whereas this bill is singularly about fixing an election date, I think the prime result of this bill is that Canadians should know when the next election would be, barring a loss of confidence and what would constitute confidence in the House of Commons. The first section of the bill clearly does say:

Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion.

There are a lot of questions that need to be hammered out at the committee level in the sense of trying to come up with a bill that we could all support when it comes back to the House, a bill that would actually provide what it says it is going to provide, which is certainty around the timing of elections.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the question earlier about a concern that I truly have. I can see the issue being a real problem down the road.

I would like the hon. member sitting next to me to comment on a couple of things. One would be on priorities. The other is that the provincial elections in Ontario have been set for a certain date as have municipal elections. We know exactly when they are going to happen.

My concern is that if a minority government all of a sudden falls just before a municipal or a provincial election, two elections would happen at the same time. This would cause a lot of confusion. I do not see anything in the bill that would prevent this. There is a clause that allows for three days' movement, but that does not make any change to a whole election campaign.

Would the member be open to discussing an amendment that would allow that to be changed? I am not sure exactly what the parameters are. I have identified a weakness in it. Unfortunately, I do not have a solution.

I like fixed election dates; I think they are a good idea. However, I am really concerned that if there is an election at the same time as a municipal or provincial election and they are both held at the same time in perpetuity every four years, it would cause real problems not only for the parties, but also for the voters. It would be very confusing.

The other question I have is on priorities. There were five priorities and now it is down to four. Where does this come as a priority? It does not seem to be terribly high on the list. I never saw it before. All of a sudden it is a priority. It is the first item that we are talking about. Could you comment on that please?

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I remind the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming to address his comments through the Chair.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the issue conflicting with other elections is something that would have to go to committee. I do not know how to manage that.

I want to address the member's other question which is on priorities. This issue clearly is not a priority for Canadians.

As a result of budget 2006 we are seeing once again a growing disparity between the rich and the poor. Government initiatives in my view do little to help those who most need assistance. They do little to help students to gain access to post-secondary education, and do nothing for the productivity agenda which is so important to Canada. The government's initiatives do very little, if anything, for Canada's first nations people and do nothing for child care. There are all kinds of priorities.

When I went around my constituency this summer, people said to me, “The GST was cut, but I didn't notice. A penny and a half on a cup of coffee does not make a lot of difference to me, but if the personal exemption had been kept where it was, it would have helped”.

As priorities, this issue is not one of them. It has been presented as legislation and I will support it, but we could have done a lot more for Canadians.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

(Motion agreed to, bill read a second time and referred to a committee)