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.

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

Canada Elections Act

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

moved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will turn my attention to the proposed amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at our end of the House we are rather perplexed on two different levels.

First of all, there is the obvious irony of having the Senate interfere in and make comment about our election system in this country, with the unelected, undemocratic senators actually butting their noses in and interfering with the way the nation chooses to run its elections.

Having said that, we are also somewhat confused that the ruling party seems bound and determined today to sabotage and undermine its own initiative, its own bill, something it committed to Canadians.

I would remind my colleague, the government House leader, that one of the best features of a minority Parliament is that the ruling party of the day has to take into consideration input from other sources. It has to accommodate the reasonable concerns of the other parties. In this case, the Conservatives are outnumbered by I believe three to one.

The opposition parties all believe that this is a reasonable amendment from the Senate. Notwithstanding the irony of having the Senate butt its nose into the way we elect people, there is some merit to what it is putting forward today.

Rather than hurling stones at others for sabotaging and undermining this bill, the government is giving us the spectre of the government itself sabotaging its own initiative. To what end? Selfish political advantage. The Conservatives want the ability to be able to call an election without being exposed as frauds in terms of a commitment to fixed election dates.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing, of course, is seeking to restore, defend and strengthen the integrity of the bill. We seek to keep it in its original form and avoid its watering down. Quite clearly, the effort to undermine this has come from the Senate.

My friend from Winnipeg Centre has said that in a minority Parliament the government should accommodate the other parties. I remind him that in this House of Commons and in this chamber all parties supported this bill in its original form. The amendment did not come from anyone in this chamber. It did not come from anyone in the minority Parliament. As he observed, the amendment came from people in an unelected Senate.

Let us think of the irony. Everyone who was elected, every single member of this House of Commons, everyone who has to face the voters in an election, supported the bill in its original form. The Senate is the only place where people thought it should be changed. The only people who thought they had some opinions on how elections should be run, opinions that were different from those of everybody in this chamber, were the people who never face elections, the senators. Let us think of that. That is what is called chutzpah. That is some nerve.

If the senators were actually proposing that they should have fixed date elections, I could understand this amendment being introduced, but I did not see them proposing any amendments that there should be elections and that this bill should apply to the Senate. I did not see them proposing that there should even be fixed terms or fixed dates for senators. They seem to be resisting that in dragging it out so far. No, the only thing the senators are willing to do is tell people in the House how they should run elections.

To me, that is the height of irony. I think it tells us what one of the problems is in the Senate right now, and it tells us why we need to reform the Senate and why we need to continue this program of democratic reform and accountability to have fixed terms for senators. Also, we have Bill C-43, and if the other parties support the bill, then maybe we even will have an opportunity for some of this legislation to apply to senators one day and have them elected.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. government House leader and heard him say that he is not willing to accept a suggestion from the senators. When we look at it, he probably is more aware of this than I am because he has more experience in Parliament, but when bills are brought in and witnesses come before a committee, they are non-elected people and we take advice from those citizens.

I listened to the member for Winnipeg Centre. It makes total sense. If someone puts forward a good suggestion we parliamentarians should respect it. This is a very minor adjustment to the government's own bill. I think the government should accept it and should support the other parties and make this law today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Newton—North Delta brought up the committee, the hearings at the committee, and the witnesses they heard from, because guess what? After committee members heard witnesses at the procedure and House Affairs committee of the House of Commons, they did not introduce that amendment. They kept the bill the way it was. As well, after the Senate committee members heard witnesses on how they thought the bill should work, they kept the bill the way it was.

It was not a suggestion from witnesses at one of the committees or a decision of one of the committees that led to this change. It was from one senator who thought he would raise it third reading, at the eleventh hour, as another way to stall this bill and to stall any form of democratic reform. That is the real Liberal Party agenda.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's comments and I must say, for the record and as I have said privately to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, I wish him well in his future plans. I know he is not seeking re-election. I think that it is a shame, quite frankly. I think the member for Vancouver Quadra has brought much distinction to the House and he is the type of parliamentarian, regardless of partisanship, that all Canadians respect and deserve.

He has represented his riding well and I wish him much success in all his future endeavours. I wish frankly he was coming back to this institution. He brings with him great credit, and a lot of experience and expertise, but since that is not going to happen, congratulations for all of the work he has done on behalf of both his party and members of the committee on which he served so admirably. I had the distinction of sitting with him on one of those committee.

However, as much as I admire and respect the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, I must say that I fundamentally disagree with the premise that he is advancing, that this is a minor technical amendment because it is no such thing.

The amendment clearly states that if there is a referendum, either at the municipal, provincial or federal level, the date of the federal election could be changed, as the hon. government House leader indicated in his presentation. There could be a referendum in a small community in northern Saskatchewan or northern Ontario, say 450 people or 500 people holding a referendum on a hockey arena. A decision could be made because of this amendment that a federal election be cancelled, delayed or put off to a date not originally recommended.

I think that is not a minor technical change. I think that is a fundamental and significant change. If it is as minor a change as he suggests, what difficulty would he or any opposition member have in just removing the amendment and going back to the original bill which the member supported? If it is that minor in nature, what difficulty would that member have in removing it all together? Should he do that as the government House leader indicated, then it would become law and very quickly.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very kind remarks. In fact, I was on the verge of reconsidering my decision not to run again until he got to the word “however”.

The hon. member raises good points. The key to this issue is getting the legislation passed at the earliest possible moment. It just seems to me that the reality of a referendum being called over a relatively minor issue in a municipality, provincially or federally, would not affect Canadians broadly. It is just inconceivable in that situation that the Chief Electoral Officer, one of the most important offices in our democratic set of institutions, would delay a federal election for a municipal referendum.

We ask, why have it there? There may be some, and this is what the senators are suggesting it determine, unforseeable situation where it was important to adjust it. I think frankly that it is much more likely that if there was any conflict in dates because of a municipal or provincial referendum, or even a federal referendum, it would be done perhaps consciously in order to make the whole process more efficient. In this manner people could come out and vote on two things at the same time, which may in fact save costs and enhance voter turnout. So, there may be something very valuable in this that suggests that it would not be used lightly nor would the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer be exercised in anything but the most serious way in the public interest.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the member of the government in his upcoming retirement. I agree wholeheartedly with exactly what was said, that he is a tremendous asset to the House and brings all sorts of experience, decorum and benefit to the House. We will certainly sorely miss him and hopefully he will be a reference to us as needed.

I am disappointed with the government not in the substantive amendment but in three process issues and I would like to ask the member if he is also disappointed.

One is that it seems to believe in fixed election dates and now is stalling its own bill. I find that disappointing.

Second and more important is that the government House leader suggested that there were no problems with this bill when it came to the House. I commend to the House leader that if he is going to make such untrue statements, he should read Hansard to see what members have said. There was not a unanimous love-in about this bill.

As we know, there are people who have some problems with the entire concept. Those were outlined during the debate. I certainly had some problems with the concept and outlined them. The critic knows that I went to him a number of times with a very strong concern about this bill. The very first year this bill goes into effect it is going to cause an election about three days after the municipal election in Yukon. I have a number of concerns with it.

It is really not fair for the government House leader to get up and say that everyone approved it and there were no problems. He really should listen to the debate and treat those comments fairly.

Finally, we should not be dismissive of the Chief Electoral Officer. This suggestion came from the experts. I would think the government would want to listen to the experts, the people who are objectively tasked with implementing this process and have great respect for Canadians. They are non-partisan, objective and separate, and made a recommendation that we should take seriously and should not be so dismissive of it.

I would like to ask the critic if he agrees with me on those three points.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to address the procedural issue and awareness of what happens in the process in the House when legislation is brought forward for debate, goes to committee and comes back, the member is absolutely right. There are very few issues where there is unanimity within a party, certainly not across the aisles here, but that is what is healthy about the debate.

That is why the Senate actually exists, this second sober thought. The way the convention of the role of this legislative body and the Senate has come to work out the fact that as our democracy progresses, it is not an elected legislative body, but does have a very special role to give extra thought.

Even before it gets there, of course, we have many differences of opinion within and among parties in the House and that is the richness of our democracy. We all learn as we go through that legislative process of debate. We have to be very slow to criticize new ideas or differences of opinion, even if they are only slight changes to the general flow of the intent of the House and then as it is considered in the other place.

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

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate it is no surprise to me that the Liberal members opposite want to amend and change the bill because they do not want four year terms. That is the bottom line.

They look for any advantage they can find to allow government to control the election. They think that if they get back into power, it would be advantageous to them. That is the bottom line here.

The real issue is that as the bill is amended, the government can regulate when the election is held because it will simply have a referendum. Why not have a referendum on any number of issues? Then the election will be put off. That is unfair.

The point is that the bill has been sent to the Senate calling for four year terms. Canadians from coast to coast to coast would understand clearly that when an election day is held, four years hence there will be another one. What is complicated about that and why can the Liberals not agree to four year terms?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the concept that is presented by the hon. member of a federal government calling a national referendum to avoid a fixed date election is so beyond comprehension that I am not sure how to answer it seriously.

Alternatively, the concept of a Chief Electoral Officer accepting that the existence of a municipal referendum on a local issue would cause the Chief Electoral Officer to amend or delay the federal election, both of those are beyond imagination. The only way we would have a referendum is on an issue of national importance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment on the member's concern about the set election date. He suggested May but I think he should take into consideration that May would not be a very good time for most farming communities. Although I do not know about Quebec, I do know that May is smack in the middle of seeding time on the prairies and much field work is being done prior to those weekends. If it is a late Easter, as sometimes it is, or, as he mentioned, Thanksgiving never being on the same weekend, it could cause problems if the election date were set during that time.

As he said, this is not handy either because he might be away closing down cabins while those in the prairie provinces are opening up their cabins in May. May is not really that good for the farming communities but it is also not good because graduations and weddings are usually held then, whereas that is never an issue at the end of October.

I just want to know if the member ever took into consideration farming communities that perhaps would not be in favour of a May election date.

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

Mr. Speaker, my point was not to reconsider the date that had been chosen. I simply said that at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we had suggested May, but we were defeated. We will live with it. We will bear that in mind and accept a fixed-date election on the third Monday of October.

My colleague has informed me that seeding and various agricultural activities take place in May, but I would think that they also take place in October. So, it will probably be hard to find the best date.

That said, we are opposed to the amendment put forward by the Senate that would allow a referendum, particularly a municipal one, to change the date in October.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, within three or four days of the bill's coming into effect, there will be a municipal election in the Yukon. Does the hon. member agree that it will be a good bill in that respect? Personally, I find it very confusing. I have been through two elections at the same time before. People get confused when the enumerators come to the door. They think that the enumerators have already been there and wonder for which election they are being enumerated. Does the hon. member think that is good and will there be more flexibility for the Chief Electoral Officer?

Also, the minor amendment we are talking about is at the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer. Of course, he would not change a federal election for a minor municipal issue. Does the member have confidence in the Chief Electoral Officer to make rational decisions?

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

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

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

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

I am not sure what my colleague is yapping about, but he is breaking my concentration. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could ask him to take it outside.

In Quebec, these elections will be held the third Monday of October, 2009. Quebec has fixed date municipal elections and all the municipalities in Quebec will be in an election period on November 1, 2009. This will necessarily cause confusion. Not everyone is up on politics. I know that because I have been a federal member since 1993 and some people wished me good luck in Quebec's provincial election on March 26. I told them I was not campaigning because I was working at the federal level. People are used to seeing us, to seeing our faces in the newspapers and from time to time on campaign signs. I agree with my colleague, this can cause some confusion. However, a member who is involved, who goes door to door and meets his constituents, will be able to set things straight quite easily.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord is quite right about the noise in the House. I would appreciate all members paying attention to the question of the member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I were on the committee that studied the bill. Does he agree that if we entertain this motion from the government that it will have the unfortunate consequence, unintended perhaps from his party's support of the government motion, of actually delaying the bill being put into place?

We all supported the intent of the bill. It is a good step in terms of giving all Canadians a sense of when an election would take place. It takes away the opportunity of the government to manipulate the election date for its own purposes.

Could I get an indication as to the hon. member's concerns that perhaps it will delay the bill's coming into force, and the concerns he might have to get the bill going versus the concerns he might have about the amendment? Should we not follow a speedy process on the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, that does pose a problem in terms of balance.

We were faced with accepting a bad amendment and the possibility of the government using that to delay adoption of the bill. It is all about perception. The government patted itself on the back and boasted that this bill required it to go ahead with fixed date elections. Now, if it uses delaying tactics to postpone adopting the bill, the government will have to bear the blame.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Ottawa--Vanier is rising on a point of order.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier you agreed with the member who just spoke about being interrupted. I would like to disagree because when one colleague accuses another of yapping, I do not believe that the Speaker should say that it is all right.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The member for Ottawa—Vanier is also right. What I wanted to address, when I intervened just before, was not the yapping but rather the interruption of one member by another.

The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was not even present when I made the comment. He arrived at the last minute and —

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In one of his last comments, the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côté-Nord alluded to the fact that he has been here since 1993. Therefore, with his experience, he knows that we do not mention the presence or absence of members.

I now recognize the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, for the people who are watching this debate I just want to say that they should not get led to believe that Ed Broadbent brought this idea to the House of Commons. This idea goes back to the Reform Party, the party that I supported. One of the fundamental principles of the leader of the Reform Party, Preston Manning, was set election dates and Senate reform.

Those NDP members who love to give themselves credit for this had better read their history on it. It also was part of our platform in the last election, as I recall. The New Democrats never put it in their election platform but they are talking today like they had. I just wanted to correct the record.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is rather interesting, but I submit this to the member. I know the former Reform Party, or whatever it calls itself now, there was Alliance and then Reform, spoke about such things as recall and other interesting things such as pensions and Senate appointments. I believe Mr. Manning had something about a triple-E Senate in the party's platform.

I am not sure where Mr. Manning is now on those issues, but I know Edward Broadbent and our party fought for democratic reform from the onset, back in the 1960s. We had put fixed election dates forward as a proposal in an ethics package, along with floor crossing. That was not during the election campaign. The member suggested it was in her party's platform, and I trust her on that. I am talking about before the last election. We talked about cleaning up politics, and the government stole from that package. I am glad to see it brought some of those ideas forward. I hope it goes further and looks at that ethics package and at real democratic reform and follows up on this,

For the record, the member is in the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party was not on the record for that until the last election. Before the last election, we were. Those are the facts and that is the history.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have two short questions for the member.

First, he said that he had a problem with the author of the bill came. The author was the former chief electoral officer. Does the member have a problem with him?

Second, the member suggested that the government put out all kinds of goodies in the last budget to get elected. I would like to know what those goodies. There was nothing for national housing, almost nothing for aboriginal people, nothing for the poor and nothing for undergraduate students. The income tax rate went up from 15% to 15.25%. What goodies did the government give out in the last budget?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points. It was the messenger, not the author. I thank the member for the opportunity to make the correction. I simply meant where it came from in terms of being written, and that was from the Senate.

As for the goodies, there were no goodies in this. I am talking about the good old pork barrel politics that I think Allan MacEachan would have been proud to see. The budget reminded me that it was a little of this and a little of that. I am talking about those kinds of goodies. Rum bottle politics I believe it is called, where the government tries to give a little here and a little there. There was kind of a little of this and that, but nothing in the end for anyone to make a difference. I was simply referring to the idea of passing on goodies, not the facts.

The facts are students were abandoned. Seniors did not get a leg up. We called for a national housing strategy and finally pushed the Liberals to amend their budget so we would get somewhere on that, as well as the environment, instead of corporate tax cuts.

I agree with him that there was a little of this and that but nothing in the end.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Ottawa Centre for bringing the debate into focus and reminding us, and perhaps listeners back home as well, why we are supporting the idea of fixed election dates.

Could the member perhaps elaborate on is this? He has said that if we bring in fixed election dates, even with the motion to amend coming from the Senate, there would be a more productive period within each Parliament. The current status quo leaves us with the election period and then a brief productive period where Parliament actually gets something done. Then we are all on pins and needles, using all our energy and resources waiting for the axe to fall again. At the whim of the prime minister, there could be election any time, or as soon as the prime minister does not quite like the way Parliament is operating. The choice of when to call the election is all in the hands of one person or when the polls are favourable.

It reminds of a quote by Will Rogers. He said, “The promising season ends on Election Day. That same night, the alibi season begins”. That takes us through to the next election. It reminds me of the current status quo where we have a very brief productive period in Parliament. Perhaps by implementing fixed election dates and getting over this standoff that we have now, we would do a service to the Canadian public who I think broadly support this idea.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his quote. I want to address something that we have seen recently. We know Canadians have heard that the government is ready to go to an election. We only have to think of two weeks ago when it displayed its so-called war room, not far from where we are right now. I am sure it is very impressive, with all the latest technologies.

Is that the priority of Canadians, to look at the Conservative Party's war room, to look at the latest bells and whistles of that party, or would they rather see some action on issues like climate change, child poverty, skyrocketing tuition fees and homelessness? The Conservative Party thought it was important enough to display this over the top war room, which is in the south of the city.

It is a really important point that we have fixed date elections so we get away from that side of politics and get to the politics that should be in front of us in this place, making good laws and helping Canadians, not helping out ourselves or our fortunes in the future.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre has one minute to respond.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fully subscribe to the idea of getting on with it. That is why I am proposing to the government that it forget about the motion and about the ping-pong back and forth. The amendment is not that significant. It would not undermine or change the intent of the bill. It would simply give more guidance to the Chief Electoral Officer.

At the end of the day, Canadians will like the bill. With all due respect to all of us here, they will not look back and ask if people remember the day the Senate sent the bill back to the House with one amendment and then changed it? No. They want to see results. They do not care about our navels, they care about results. This is navel gazing by the government. Let us get on with it, tout de suite, maintenant.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member from the Bloc. I know the Bloc is supporting the amendment put forward by the government to send this bill back to the Senate.

I want to put forward the reasonableness of the argument in terms of dealing with the merit of this Senate amendment. In terms of fixed election dates, it seems to me that taking into account what is happening in a local context, whether it be in Quebec or in any other part of Canada, is reasonable. I am just curious as to why the Bloc would support the government amendment and not support the amendment from the Senate.

I realize there is all kind of other subtext going on with this debate in terms of it being embroiled with the Senate and what it can or cannot do. We in the NDP are looking at this straight on in terms of whether this is a reasonable amendment. This amendment requests the Chief Electoral Officer to take into account what may be happening in local jurisdictions, whether it is a plebiscite or a referendum. This happened recently in Ontario where a fixed election date was moved to accommodate a religious holiday. This is not mandatory. This would give the Chief Electoral Officer the scope to consider that as part of what would be recommended to the government.

In terms of a legislative initiative, it seems to us that the Senate amendment makes sense and the response from the government to send a message back indicating that it does not agree with it does not make sense. I would like to ask the member this. Why would he not agree with the original amendment that has come forward on this bill that would give the Chief Electoral Officer a little more scope to consider what advice he would be offering?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the NDP member's question, I would quote the famous writer who said that perfect is the enemy of good.

In this case, the Senate may have tried to do too good a job, and messed up as a result. According to subsection 56.2, if the fixed date, the third Monday in October, coincides with a provincial or municipal election, the Chief Electoral Officer may choose to hold the election another day.

However, according to the Senate's amendment, that list should include federal and provincial referendums—which makes sense to us—but also municipal referendums—which we consider excessive. The election could be delayed if a mayor decides to hold a referendum. In Quebec, a lot of referendums are held concerning issues under municipal jurisdiction. They can be about anything, so this would be going too far in our view.

We should send this back to the Senate so it can get rid of this amendment and keep it down to federal and provincial referendums. We do not think it makes sense to give a mayor the opportunity to delay a national election.

Provincial and municipal elections—in Quebec, at any rate—are always held on the same date, which is known well in advance and which makes for far fewer problems. Furthermore, municipal elections in Quebec are usually held in November. That is why we support the government motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the life of me I cannot understand why the opposition parties wants to take this piece of legislation and move it backward instead of forward.

Hon. members are all pretending to support the legislation, but they want to amend it to give the government even more tools to put off having an election every four years. That is the reality of it. If we were to have four year terms, the municipalities, the provinces and we hope the federal government would not bring in a referendum or cause an election to occur.

The hon. member is giving government more opportunity to not follow the four year rule but to have its friends in a municipality or in a province or perhaps the government itself do something that would cause an election not to be held. Why would the hon. member want to amend the bill to actually defeat the purpose of the bill?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do not understand why my colleague opposite is so enthusiastic and aggressive, since we support what the government wants. If he wore his headphones, perhaps he would truly understand what the Bloc Québécois thinks.

We agree with them, not because they are nice—my colleague has just made that clear—but because the amendment made by the Senate is excessive and, in our opinion, makes no sense. He should remember that.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

So indeed. Pursuant to the request of the chief government whip the recorded division stands deferred to Tuesday, April 24.

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

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think, were you to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion presently before the House, with Conservative members present this evening voting yes.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, the members from the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the members from the NDP will vote against the motion.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of the motion.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this motion.

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

Vote #162

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.