Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2006

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

Mr. Donison.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you. I didn't hear that. My apologies.

Mr. Donison.

[Michael D. Donison]

You're asking me to give an opinion on a constitutional issue, the discretion of the Governor General in a situation like that. I don't know how to answer your question, because we can start speculating: how does the Governor General know the government has manipulated? The opposition may say the government has manipulated. The government may say we didn't manipulate other people. I wouldn't know how to answer that.

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

Okay, so you're agreeing with me that if the Prime Minister decides he wants an election, what he has to do to be above board is to make sure his government gets defeated.

[Michael D. Donison]

No, I don't think I said that.

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

Oh, you don't agree with me. Oh, I see.

[Michael D. Donison]

I'm simply saying that in our British Westminster model, if the government is defeated on a matter of confidence, that is what the crown must take cognizance of. The constitutional experts can argue on that.

I think the point, though.... Again I emphasize the practical versus the theoretical. Honourable members keep talking about the theory, and I understand that. But again I point you to the empirical evidence: in jurisdictions where this has happened, there has been no legal restraint on the power of the prime minister or the crown. The political reality is that politicians act within that paradigm. It almost creates a new paradigm. Therefore, if it's apparent to the opposition and the press that the government is manipulating its own defeat in this new paradigm, the prime minister and his government are going to face a bigger consequence than they did in the past.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you. You still have three minutes.

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

I'll share my time with Madam Jennings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Proulx.

Madam Jennings, please.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Donison, I'm slightly confused, because you say that in those jurisdictions where you have flexible fixed elections, because the prerogative still exists, it has created a new paradigm. My understanding is that B.C. has only just gone to fixed election dates. Ontario is only now going to fixed election dates. Other provinces have only said they will go to fixed election dates. In Australia, these two state legislatures you're talking about have only recently gone to fixed election dates. So the affirmations you're making are based on very, very recent.... We're talking about systems where they have one flexible-fixed or possibly two flexible-fixed. We're not talking about systems where those flexible fixed election dates in parliamentary democracies have existed for 50 or 60 years.

If you have examples where flexible fixed systems have existed for a longer period, I wish you would bring it forward. Otherwise, this is really intuitive or anecdotal at this point. And I don't believe there is sufficient clear and convincing evidence to make the kinds of affirmations and conclusions you're making.

[Michael D. Donison]

I may have gone too far, Madam Jennings, in terms of saying it's a new paradigm. I think it is intuitive to a great extent. All I'm saying is that you have some empirical evidence—some—and I just think the reality will be that politicians will act in a certain way. That's my supposition, but I guess we'll see.

But at least this is an improvement. I again make the point that this kind of legislation is going to make it politically more difficult for a first minister in the British model to call a premature election. It will be much more difficult than in the past. That is just intuitive, and I think that makes political common sense. I guess the testing will be in the pudding, but it is certainly a movement in the right direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you. That time is up.

Mr. Lukiwski, please.

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

This will be hopefully very brief, because I just want to underscore what Mr. Donison is saying in answer to Mr. Proulx's question. If any majority government attempted to cause its own defeat, it would be patently obvious, not only to the opposition members but to the members of the public and the members of the media, who would castigate any government for doing so. That government would pay, in my opinion, a very steep political price for doing so.

I think there are checks and balances in the system that will stop that from happening. I do not believe we need to have any definitive or legislative processes put into place other than what we already have. Frankly, anyone who has been even a casual observer of politics in this country would surely recognize the fact that there would be a steep political price to pay. So I do not think this is going to be something that is going to be much of a concern for anyone under this new legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay.

Is there a question at all for the panel?

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

No, it was just a comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

I have no other names on my list, but I will offer time to the remaining parties. Did you want to ask a question or make comment?

Mr. Dewar, please.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Just to be clear on why we support this legislation, Mr. Milner talks about it and we might have the opportunity to talk to him. When he juxtaposed and looked at other jurisdictions where they have this in place, from his study, there seems to have been an improvement—and I would use the word “incremental” for sure. There are other things that need to be done, and I think he has suggested that as well.

But we also have to look at what the status quo is. The amount of cynicism that was injected into our political culture when prime ministers used their power cynically, just to advantage themselves, far outweighs the concerns I have about fixed election dates. This sets the parameters so that the people, be they the fourth estate or others, can examine this. I'm willing and we're willing to have this reform take place and then we can get on with real democratic reform...well, not real, but more substantive democratic reform, like PR.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm assuming there's no question there for the panel either.

I'm going to thank the witnesses now, because it looks like we're done with our questioning. I appreciate very much all the witnesses coming out again today. We do often give brief notice, but we appreciate your preparedness in turning out today.

I will dismiss the panel, and I thank you again on behalf of the committee.

As the panellists gather their papers, the meeting remains in public.

I just want to remind members that the next meeting is on Thursday, when we will have a panel of experts. Professor Henry Milner will be appearing via video conference from Sweden; Professor Andrew Heard will be appearing via video conference from Victoria; and Professor Louis Massicotte will actually be here in person, in Ottawa. That's just a reminder, and the room will be 253-D. You will get reminders from the clerk.

Are there any further questions or pieces of business? Seeing none, I declare the meeting adjourned.