Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 26th, 2006

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Certainly, as part of some constitutional program, this subject of course could be addressed. There is no question about that. Would it be necessary to address it? I'm suggesting it's not necessary, but certainly it can always be revisited.

As it stands now, it's a piece of legislation of Parliament. Parliament can change its mind. That said, conventions do develop and traditions develop. It doesn't mean they can't be changed. Again, I think this is an incremental change, it can be done by legislation, and it's one that should be done.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'd just like to follow up, Mr. Newman, on your opinion with regard to having criteria set within the dimensions of what confidence would mean, or for that matter, criteria around a statute--because we're not going to open the Constitution, clearly--about the power of the Prime Minister or, I guess, some directive and guidance to the Prime Minister. I understand you wouldn't want to have that in the bill, but I'd like to explore that a bit more. You were referring to a legal consequence, and I'd like to know a bit more about that.

[Warren Newman]

The Prime Minister--and I hope the current Prime Minister will forgive me for saying this--is a creature of convention. The Prime Minister is not really, under our formal constitutional structure, a recognized actor, but he's very much an actor in the real world of politics. And the genius of our system is that it combines the formal world of the Constitution Act of 1867 with the evolution of our political framework and the values that accompany that framework, and that's really done through constitutional convention. So when the Prime Minister says he's going to call an election, he's really meaning, in legal terms, he will go to the Governor General and advise the Governor General that he recommends it. In law, the decision is with the Governor General, so the Governor General holds the power on behalf of the Crown. One could just as easily say it's with the Crown as with the Governor General. There are several sources in our Constitution for this power to dissolve, but they're all legal powers that are retained by the Crown, and of course the Prime Minister is a minister of the Crown, so an advisor to the Crown.

I don't know if there's anything I can add to that in an encapsulation. It is something that should be explored with nuance, of course, but as the minister has indicated, attempting to translate into rules of law flexible rules of constitutional convention that evolve in the political sphere has its own downside in terms of the role of the courts, justiciability, turning what are appropriately political roles into legal roles. So we may not want the rigidity.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

If there is a way for Canadians to have in this bill--and it's a political test in the end to the people of Canada--some understanding of what the intent is so that by way of rider or by way of criteria set that would be doable, I think that would be helpful. How we do that I leave to others.

[Rob Nicholson]

I'm not sure how we could do that, Mr. Dewar, quite frankly. I've indicated the problems of trying to define exactly the confidence convention, and I think Mr. Newman has indicated that it has to be flexible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Minister.

We're going to go now to the third round, keeping it to three minutes if we possibly can, and then we'll be able to do this full round.

We'll start with Madam Jennings.

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

Thank you.

One, I understand that given proposed section 56.1, we're talking more about flexible fixed elections because the Governor General's authority and discretion to take the advice of the Prime Minister at any time preceding the fixed election date could in fact see Canadians in a general election.

My point is that much has been made of the idea that fixed election dates would counter voter apathy, would see possibly an improvement of voter participation. I would just like to know what studies have been done that show that fixed election dates do in fact show higher voter participation than we normally see in jurisdictions, mostly parliamentary systems, where there is no fixed election date. Also, how do the fixed election dates that we see in the United States and here at the municipal level measure up in terms of voter participation? As well, have studies been done to look at the correlation between voter participation and the fact that some jurisdictions that do have fixed election dates actually make it a legal mandatory obligation to go and vote, and if one doesn't vote, depending on the jurisdiction, there's either a penalty to be paid or it could go up to imprisonment?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

We don't have any studies on that, Mrs. Jennings. It actually is relatively new within the Canadian system. As you know, we are looking to both Ontario and Newfoundland. Their elections are coming up. British Columbia has just had theirs. It's very difficult. Who would have guessed that voter turnout would have gone up in an election at the end of January? Again, it's the motivation of the people.

Looking at the fixed or flexible fixed dates within our parliamentary system, it's still relatively new within that system. You can't really compare, for instance, to Mexico, the United States, Latvia, or various countries that have a completely different system, that have always had a rigid fixed date, as to whether it's better.

We've had a pretty good record in this country of voter turnout. It has been declining over the last forty years. We saw a reversal of it in January. Again, I can't see how it wouldn't help improve the situation where people are trying to make plans, who take the responsibility as Canadian citizens seriously to be able to know when it is exactly that they're going to vote. I think it would be helpful.

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

I don't want to interrupt, but the short answer is that you don't have any studies that make these correlations that some have used as arguments for fixed election dates.

I'll turn the rest of my time over to my colleague.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I am making the argument because I believe intuitively that it will help.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Sorry, we don't have any more time. I apologize for that.

Mr. Lukiwski, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I want to ask a question about the flexibility of the dates themselves. You mentioned that you have provisions within the act so that even though the date has been set, if there were a cultural or religious event you would have the flexibility to move the date back a week, or something like that. I would anticipate that in the case of a cultural or religious conflict, moving the date of the fixed election back a week would avoid that conflict.

But what would happen—and I'm sure this will occur sooner rather than later—if there were another election in a provincial jurisdiction at the same time that the federal election was purported to be held? If you're running two elections at the same time--one provincial and one federal--that is bound to cause an awful lot of confusion and other logistical problems on a number of different levels. An example would be the ability for provincial and federal parties to gain advertising time on television if they were both vying for a limited amount of time.

I'm not asking what the bill says, but how would you see resolving that conflict when the eventuality does happen that you have two elections occurring in two different jurisdictions within a week or two?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It's a tricky business. We have 13 jurisdictions in Canada besides the federal government, and they all hold elections. There are municipal elections as well. Within each jurisdiction you can have two sets of elections, so there could be 26 different elections.

That being said, it's impossible to make sure that whenever the federal government sets or calls its election, there is no election in any one of the jurisdictions that make up this country. In 1988, I remember that there was a provincial byelection in my area and a municipal election, and the federal election was piled on at the same time. People were looking at signs for three different levels of government. They were challenged, but people managed to get through that and sort it out.

Monsieur Proulx has indicated that not all of them choose Monday, which happens to be the day of the federal election. He indicated that the date is sometimes on a Sunday in provincial elections. I know that Ontario likes to go on a Thursday.

It seems to me that once having set the federal election date, other jurisdictions might not want to have their elections coincide exactly with when they know the federal election is going to take place. It's impossible to guarantee there will never be any overlap between us and the other 26 jurisdictions that could be holding elections.

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

I wasn't looking for a guarantee, but I thank you for your answer. I think your assessment is correct that once the convention happens every four years, other jurisdictions will avoid it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me, Mr. Lukiwski, your time is up.

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Guimond.

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

I'd like to add a brief comment for the members of the committee. My colleagues, Mr. Proulx of the Gatineau region and Mrs. Jennings of the Montreal region, know that we have fixed dates in Québec for municipal elections.

If the next elections are held on October 19, 2009, there will be tons of signs on telephone poles because, at that time, more than 2200 municipalities will be in full election mode.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's the end of your questions.

We'll move to Mr. Dewar, please.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Just as a quick point, far be it from me to help the government in terms of making its argument, but if you take a look at Ms. Jennings' question, if you look at studies, you can certainly look at jurisdictions where they have adopted a flexible fixed date. I'll point to the one that I know the best, which is New Zealand. They have seen an improvement in voter turnout. So if that is sourced and brought forward, it might be helpful.

But I have to say that when we look at Mr. Milner's paper, when we look at the example of New Zealand, I really want to underline the point that, notwithstanding that it's a move toward democratic reform, it really isn't the end of the equation in terms of what we've seen particularly in New Zealand, where it was coupled with other democratic reforms. I would hate to see this being the end of the story. Hopefully it is just the beginning, because I can tell you, when you look at the case of New Zealand--and they are in the Westminster tradition--it was coupled with other reforms. I simply wanted to make that point.

There are jurisdictions outside of Canada that have adopted fixed election dates, and it seems to be a positive thing.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I think you are right, but again, how you measure that is very difficult. Somebody could print a paper saying the best time to have an election is in January because it would reverse a trend that has gone on for 40 years of relatively declining voter turnouts, and we had one at the end of January. It seems to me that, quite apart from that, we should try this. Let's see how it works in the other provincial jurisdictions. New Zealand has had a tradition. It's by convention that they have theirs every three years, I believe. And you're right, others in the Westminster tradition are having a look at it.

I think it is a step forward, and it is a positive one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, members. I appreciate that. It was a very productive round of questions.

I would simply remind members that if there are any other issues, we do have the option of inviting the minister back if we feel that it's necessary. We have a number of other witnesses coming up. As well, we have the option--

Ms. Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I was just going to ask the committee's indulgence. I didn't get to ask. May I go on record as asking two questions? Or I can submit them in writing to have them responded to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Please. That would be the opportunity to do that. If you could submit them in writing, that would be fine. Thank you.

We have the option also of having parliamentary secretaries, and so on, available as we go to clause-by-clause.

I know I simply asked the minister to come for one hour, and that time is up.

I appreciate your time and your coming here as quickly as you did. Thank you and your team for doing so.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I were just talking, and certainly we have no objection, and I don't think the minister would have any objection, to quickly hearing Ms. Redman's questions and having a quick response from the minister.

On our side, at least, we'd have no problem with that. I don't know about the other side.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

We're not sure.

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

Let's have a caucus meeting on that.