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

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

We're going to start the meeting now. We're waiting for one more witness representative to show up, but perhaps they will mingle in as we get started. We are going to get started because we have a number of witnesses to hear from and ask questions of, so time is of the essence.

I would like to advise members again that this meeting is being held in public.

Delivered to you this morning should have been a copy of a letter from Ms. Johnson as follow-up to our last meeting. There were some requests for information in writing. You have that before you. Hopefully that will help complete the questions of Ms. Johnson.

The purpose of the meeting today, of course, is consideration of Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, specifically with a focus on fixed election dates.

We have witnesses from the various parties. I'm assuming these are our new witnesses. We will proceed in a suggested order. I suggest that we proceed in the order of the Conservative Party first, the Bloc Québécois second, the New Democratic Party third, and the Green Party.

I'm open to instructions from the committee, but I have found that the meetings of five-minute rounds have worked well. However, today we have a number of witnesses, and with the committee's permission I would like to suggest we extend that to seven-minute rounds, at least for the first round, to allow for multiple answers.

Is it okay that we proceed with seven-minute rounds for the first round? I'm seeing nods. Is there any disagreement on a seven-minute round?

Ms. Jennings.

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

I have no objection to a seven-minute round for the first round, but I do have a question on a piece of information that I'd like before we begin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

By all means.

We will proceed on the first round with seven-minute rounds for questions and answers, and then we'll go back to a five-minute round of questions and we'll proceed as long as we have to.

Ms. Jennings.

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

I understand that the Liberal Party of Canada was invited to be here today and had to decline because of the super weekend, etc. I'd like to know if the members of this committee would be prepared to invite the LPC back on another more convenient date. That's all I would like to know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'll open that question to the committee without comment from myself.

The question proposed by Ms. Jennings is that we set up a separate time for the committee to meet, whereby the Liberal Party of Canada would therefore have an opportunity to attend. They were not able to attend, apparently because of the super weekend that was held.

Are there any comments on that?

Mr. Preston first, then Mr. Hill, unless you want to decline.

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

No, go ahead, Mr. Hill.

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

I was going to point out that I'm a little concerned about fairness and equity to the other parties that were able to attend now. I certainly would be open to a written submission from the Liberal Party. They would have an advantage, in a sense, of being able to review the submissions that are made verbally and I assume would also be made available to the committee in writing following today and then make their submission along the same lines. Certainly we welcome that from them, but I have a little problem with scheduling a specific meeting just to coincide with their schedule.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Ms. Jennings.

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

That is a very good suggestion that we proceed, at least to begin with, by asking LPC to make a written submission, and then depending on whether there are issues that arise out of it, there may be a desire on the part of committee members to have a face-to-face meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I am seeing all nods on that, so that is how we will proceed. I will remind the committee as well that on Thursday we're meeting with other witnesses. Mr. Owen had brought up the issue that there may be a need to hear other witnesses, so perhaps we can even discuss that if they need to attend and if we need to have other witnesses, we could combine them at that meeting.

For now the decision is to request a written submission from the Liberal Party, and if we need to meet with them, we'll certainly do that. Let's proceed, then, if we can, to the main business of the day.

First of all, let me thank all of you for coming out this morning. It's a pleasure to see some of you again. The rest are new to me, but I thank you very much for coming out and taking your time to help fill the committee in on some of the questions we have with respect to fixed election dates.

We'll start off with a five-minute introduction, if that's what you need. If you don't, we'll just move around and then we'll open it for questions.

We'll start the round with Mr. Donison.

Thank you.

[Michael D. Donison, Executive Director, Conservative Party of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to you and members of the committee for giving the Conservative Party and the other political parties the opportunity to appear before you today to speak to Bill C-16, which deals with fixed date elections.

I suggest, Mr. Chair, we call it fixed-date elections rather than fixed election dates. What we are fixing is the date, not the election.

Generally speaking, Mr. Chair, first of all--and then I want to speak a little bit specifically about the effects it will have on political parties from an operational point of view--this is an idea whose time has come. This has already been incorporated into other Westminster British parliamentary systems, and I think you've already had evidence before the committee to that effect. I would reference, of course, the province of Ontario, the province of British Columbia, the province of Newfoundland, and also commissions in both Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have recommended to their governments the same.

It is certainly the situation in the Scottish Parliament, in the Welsh Parliament, and I believe in three of the Australian state legislatures, all on the British Westminster model, and I'm not aware of any evidence that it's not working as it has been adopted by them.

Really what this idea does is a few things. I'll speak generally and then I'll speak specifically about parties. I think it combines incremental reform with the maintenance of the flexibility needed in our system of responsible government based on the British Westminster model. So it's an incremental, non-constitutional formal change.

What I've observed over the years, Mr. Chair, is when politicians are in opposition they often talk good talk about electoral and parliamentary reform but somehow when they get into government they don't seem to deliver. I think what you have before you is in this case we have a prime minister and a government who specifically campaigned on this issue and are now in government and prepared to implement it.

In many ways--and of course there has been lots of commentary, academic and otherwise, about this--of all the Westminster models, Canada probably has the most concentrated prime ministerial system, in the sense that the Prime Minister is institutionally, politically, and legally more powerful in Canada than in other Westminster systems. This is really a relinquishment, a voluntary relinquishment of prime ministerial discretionary power when it comes to calling an election.

Specifically in terms of political parties, I think what's important about this proposed reform is that it improves both fairness and predictability in our electoral system, fairness in the sense that the governing party of the day, particularly in a majority government situation--and members may want to talk about that--will no longer be at an advantage over the opposition parties in terms of the timing of the election, because everyone, including all citizens and voters, will know the election date. Therefore I think it creates a level playing field for all parties, both government and opposition.

I think the second and even more important reason, from my point view as an executive director of a political party, is it will allow a lot more predictability, predictability in terms of planning, whether it's organizing the party for election ramp-up, or volunteer and candidate recruitment. And I would particularly emphasize candidate recruitment. I notice, for instance, in a paper that I think has been presented to you by Professor Milner, that he suggested--and this is an idea I hadn't thought of, actually, Mr. Chair--that it will increase the chances of women and minorities to have much better advance notice in terms of planning their lives so that they can participate as candidates in the political process. I hadn't actually thought about that. I think it's something that needs to be considered as well, and I think commends the bill even further.

So really what we have, Mr. Chair, is a situation where we're going to replace the current situation where the best interests of the current governing party in terms of the timing of the election will be replaced with what is in the best interest of the country and of citizens.

I would just like to finish off, and then I'll of course be open to questions. I want to quote a Canadian politician, an eminent Canadian politician, on this very subject. I have his text and I can certainly table the document. He said as follows:

Elections are democratic events that belong to all of us. They do not belong to the party in power, to manipulate for its own partisan advantage. Elections do not belong to premiers, to use as they see fit for their own political agenda. Elections belong to all of us, as citizens, and we have a right to know when they will be held, so that we can plan effectively and participate fully. Mr. Speaker, elections belong to all political parties, so that all of us are on an equal footing and can compete for office fairly.

I'm quoting from the statement in the Ontario legislature of the Honourable Dalton McGuinty, the Liberal Premier of Ontario, when he introduced the bill creating fixed election dates in the province of Ontario.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, Mr. Donison.

We will now move to the Bloc Québécois. I assume one of you will be speaking.

Mr. Gardner. Thank you for coming, sir.

[Gilbert Gardner, General Director, Bloc Québécois]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the Bloc Québécois, we are in favour of the principle that underlies this legislation, but we are not fooled by it. The Prime Minister's prerogative remains, and nothing in this bill assures us that the fixed date will be respected, particularly where a minority government is concerned.

The other aspect we feel is important is the date proposed in the Bill. Quebec's specificity expresses itself in a variety of ways, and it can be difficult for people from outside Quebec to really understand all that this implies. For more than 30 years now, regulations in Quebec have meant that moving day for many people occurs within a specific period, which is July 1st. On July 1st, 250,000 households move, representing, overall, some 575,000 voters, or approximately 10% of the Quebec electorate.

Previously, Mr. Kingsley demonstrated that it would be impossible for him to capture all the data, particularly from Quebec, and associated with people moving, and postpone the filing of voters lists from October 15 to November 15, in order to incorporate these changes. He apparently said that he would do everything he could to ensure that the voters lists would be as consistent as possible with reality. If he now says it's impossible for him to file voters lists that reflect changes that have occurred in Quebec by October 15, it is even less possible for him to do that in September.

Surely no parliamentarian would want to jeopardize the voting rights of the entire population of Newfoundland or of everyone living on Prince Edward Island even though their population, all told, is less than the number of voters who move in Quebec -- the equivalent of about seven ridings. For example, the entire City of Quebec or the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Côte-Nord or part of the Gaspé regions could see their right to vote jeopardized.

Consequently, as far as we are concerned, the date selected is a real issue the Committee will have to look at. We believe the Committee should be looking at other options as regards an appropriate date.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gardner.

That's an interesting point, and I appreciate your bringing that up before the committee.

Now let's hear from Anne McGrath of the New Democratic Party, please.

[Anne McGrath, President, New Democratic Party]

Thank you very much for the invitation to come and speak to you about Bill C-16 from the perspective of the NDP.

We have circulated a brief and everybody should have a copy of it. It goes through some of the reasons we support the bill, introduces a caution, and mentions some of the further steps that we think need to be taken.

We support the bill because we believe that setting fixed dates will strengthen democracy in Canada and will help to build confidence in a fair and transparent electoral system, something that I think is definitely needed in our current climate.

As a matter of fact, the idea of these fixed dates was part of a seven-point ethics plan that was put forward by our leader, Jack Layton, and the Honourable Ed Broadbent prior to the last election. It included a proposal for fixed election dates and some other very important initiatives that were designed to revitalize our democracy, make government accountable to Canadians, and restore confidence in our electoral system.

The reason we have for supporting fixed election dates is that we believe it will level the playing field for the political parties. The timing of the election has been a powerful tool for governing parties in our system. The flexibility that they have to call an election when they're ready and in the best possible position provides an advantage for the governing party that we think is unfair and undermines democracy and transparency. We think setting the date at predictable intervals, rather than when pollsters think the timing is right, will be a great improvement.

We also believe it offers greater predictability for Canadians, for Elections Canada, which currently has to be prepared at all times, for the government, and for political parties. We think Parliament can then focus on governing and on making Parliament work for people. It also means that Elections Canada doesn't have to spend our tax dollars to be in a constant state of election readiness.

We also support the legislation because we think it will help to restore confidence in the fairness of our electoral system. It's hard to say how many, but some Canadians have definitely lost faith in our democracy. We think this legislation will help to restore fairness and, very importantly, the perception of fairness.

We think Canadians will be more likely to vote and to participate in the political process if the system is fair and accountable. Others have spoken about the increase in the diversity of the voters, particularly appealing to women and young people.

Of course, we hope it will also result in increasing voter participation rates. We think that if Canadians know in advance when the election day is, they'll know how important it is and what the issues are. It will allow us to better promote the issues in the election, make sure voters are registered, and make sure Canadians exercise their right to vote.

There is a caution that we think is important. With an election looming, the government party may have an advantage other than that of fixing the election date, and that is, using government resources to promote the party to the electorate through advertising, announcements, and campaign-like tours. We think it is a caution that we need to keep a close eye on.

We are recommending that the legislation be passed in the context of further reforms that are very important in revitalizing our democracy: things like taking power out of the hands of lobbyists and making sure decisions are made in the open; having appointments that are based on merit rather than political connections; reforming the appointment of Supreme Court judges, with an independent committee to provide criteria, examination, and debate; ending abuses in the appointment of other public officials; improving our freedom of information legislation; passing a whistle-blower act that applies to the private and public sectors; passing a new act to make MPs accountable when they switch parties so that electors can decide whether or not they approve of that decision; passing a leadership accountability act so that we can look at party leadership contests; and ensuring some form of proportional representation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

I want to assure the witnesses that some of the conversations taking place around the table are as a result of the interesting points that are being made, but I would request that my colleagues keep that to a minimum.

Ms. McGrath, I would also request that the witnesses try to stay focused. There are so many interesting things we could talk about, but I want to leave those things for a future date. We want to stay focused on the issue of fixed dates for the election.

I will let you continue, but if you could stay focused on this issue, it would be very helpful.

[Anne McGrath]

All right.

In summary, then, we support this legislation, but we do believe it is in that context of other reforms.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Now we'll move to a representative from the Green Party, David Chernushenko. Welcome.

[David Chernushenko, Senior Deputy to the Leader, The Green Party of Canada]

Thank you very much.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for inviting the Green Party to offer our views today on Bill C-16. I'll take just a few minutes to summarize our views.

We do not oppose the bill; however, we do not believe there is any particular benefit to be gained from moving to fixed election dates. While there are many possible pros and cons, none of the alleged benefits seem so strong as to make it a priority to move forward with this amendment.

If the goal of Bill C-16 is to reinvigorate democracy in Canada by making elections more fair, by increasing voter turnout, by increasing accountability, or by some other argument in favour of fixed election dates, we do not agree that any of these will be the inevitable result.

Because Canadian parliamentary tradition requires that a government have the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons, we do not see how a fixed election date is desirable, or even necessarily possible. As a political party that must plan for elections, it might seem at first glance that a fixed date would make our lives simpler and our preparations more predictable. But given that a government might still fall at any time, we would still need to be on a near constant state of readiness--as would Elections Canada, for that matter.

While the Green Party believes wholeheartedly that many aspects of our electoral system need improvement, moving to fixed election dates is not on our list of priorities. Rather, we believe all of the time and energy being devoted to this bill could and should be devoted to moving towards a more proportional form of representation.

We do wish to see a higher voter turnout; increased citizen engagement; greater government transparency and accountability; higher involvement of youth, new Canadians, and marginalized Canadians; and reduced cynicism about politics in general. We believe these are all necessary and laudable goals that must be addressed by the government. However, we do not see how a fixed election date will necessarily help.

To reiterate our views, we are not against fixed election dates, but we do not see this bill as the kind of significant electoral reform that Canada needs. We hope it would be just the start of electoral reform.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we're going to move to our first round of questioning. I'll remind you to try your best to keep your questions short; maybe the answers will be as succinct. We have a lot of material and a lot of witnesses. You can ask an individual witness for a comment, but by all means, ask for brief comments from all the witnesses. It's whatever you choose.

To start our first round, seven minutes please, Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome, witnesses, and thank you for your presentations. My question is very brief, and it's really to all of you.

Ms. McGrath mentioned the concern, I think quite appropriately, about a government not using government public advertising. The concern, which we should all properly have, is that the government not misuse its power of public policy announcements and advertising, confusing voters who might otherwise think that what is political advertising is really government advertising.

I think that's an appropriate caution, but as officials, as you all are, of national political parties, I'd be very interested to know your specific experience, concern, or otherwise with the issue that's raised by some, that where you have a fixed date, it can lead to prolonged election campaigning--the year before, say--and constrain a government's ability to get its business done. So it can impact policy, potentially, and have a financial drain impact, or be a financial advantage.

Those are some concerns we've heard. We'd welcome and value your views on whether those are realistic problems with regard to fixed election dates--or flexible fixed election dates, as this is--or whether, if there are concerns at all, there are other ways to overcome those concerns.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

You wanted a comment from all the witnesses?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I'd like a comment from all or any.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That would be fine.

Why don't we start from the left, with Mr. Chernushenko?

[David Chernushenko]

Thank you.

I believe those are concerns that you raised. There is, of course, the possibility that the moment we get anywhere close to that date we'll be in campaign mode for a very long period. We do see that in the American model. We probably see it in other countries too, but we're less aware of it. That is certainly a concern.

Another concern might be that just as students might be inclined to constantly be in preparation for exams, we might find governments in that final year so focused on the election that to some degree the business of the House and bigger issues that might be out there would be distorted.