Debates of April 27th, 2004

Supply

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was delighted to see the hon. member reach the subject of debate in the last minute of his speech. The issue is really why would one opt for fixed election dates. It is a question where there are probably reasons for and against.

The royal commission on electoral reform looked at this issue about 10 years ago and found several cogent reasons why we should not have fixed election dates. One was that once we went for a fixed election date, it would decrease the ability to make the government in power accountable because the government could be defeated on a vote in the House. We would then go for a general election. However, to put in place a fixed election date would remove that mechanism of accountability.

There are other reasons for and against, but simply on that one issue, would the hon. member to tell us how the fixed election date would increase accountability here in the House?

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing it would do, and the Liberals do not understand, is give the people of Canada what they want. The overwhelming majority would like to see fixed election dates in this country.

If we also tie in fixed election dates with absolute free votes in the House of Commons, where a government could only be defeated on the throne speech, the budget and a motion of non-confidence, we would then start to get legislation in the House that all Canadians would like because it would be supported or voted against by all members of the House, without any threat from the PMO. That is done in the British Columbia legislature right now and it works very well, even though they have a massive majority. A number of their own members vote against legislation and they get better legislation because of that.

The House should be all about that. When it comes to voting in the House, every member of the House should be equal to every other member and not put under pressure by the PMO and a small number in his cabinet.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to share time with my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, the mover of the motion and someone who has worked very hard for the Conservative cause and for Canadians. I know he believes very passionately in this issue.

The irony of much of the discussion around democratic deficit clearly, and this is an issue of democratic deficit, is that the Prime Minister, who has embodied this phrase, is actually the person who perhaps more than any other has contributed to the democratic deficit in the country through his words and actions. Much of what he and his administration have done has created a democratic gulf that he is now trying to somehow lessen.

A lot of this is really lip service. It will take substantive change. It will take a change in our electoral system, a change in process and a change in procedure within the House of Commons to actually and factually address a democratic deficit. That will come soon under a Conservative government, led by the leader of the official opposition.

As the mover of the motion from Vancouver suggested, this is aimed specifically at setting an election date so there is continuity and the ability for the nation to plan for a coming election, not this limbo, this state of unease, unrest and flux that we are currently experiencing as a result of the prerogative of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister alone and perhaps his wife, to decide that date. This is about bringing some continuity to our system.

As my friend quite aptly pointed out, the participation of young people in particular is plummeting. This is one small step on the road to recovery of bringing about relevance in our election system. I remain firm in my conviction that this is a positive step. Bringing about a fixed election date would restore some of the confidence that has been lacking in the process itself.

Over the years I have been on record in supporting this initiative. Going to the polls every four years allows Canadians, political parties and all those who function within the system to plan ahead, which clearly, in and of itself, is of benefit. If one knows a certain fixed date is arriving, just like Christmas, one can prepare.

In the past colleagues opposite and some in the opposition as well have suggested that to follow this American model of having fixed dates would somehow lead to, as my colleague opposite seemed to allude to, governments becoming stagnant. Governments would somehow then not bring forward the types of initiatives based on the fact that an election was coming. I would argue quite the opposite.

I would argue that when a government knows that time will be running out and that time is short, it will have to take a long, hard look at what it has accomplished or, in the case of the government today, not accomplished in its time in office. That again would raise the bar of accountability. It would allow Canadians to assess in a very real way whether they were getting value from their government, just as I suppose many are contemplating today whether they were getting value for the sponsorship program that was perpetrated on the country in such a crass and partisan way. Nothing could be further from the truth. To suggest somehow that fixed election dates would have a negative impact on accountability is completely wrong, in my view.

I would also be quick to add that the system in the United States is quite different in that its constitution, party constraints and restraints as a result of its congressional system is quite different from the Canadian British parliamentary system.

The government that we have seen currently is operating in such a fashion that it is trying to maximize the advantage of holding secret when the election date will come. I would say the big losers here, plain and simple, are the Canadian people.

We have seen in the past number of months, the last 100 plus days of this administration, no new initiatives, no new legislation, nothing that would inspire Canadians to think the Prime Minister has a vision, a plan or a focus as to where he wants to take the country. Again change is coming. Those winds of change are blowing under a new Conservative government in waiting, and we look forward to the opportunity to lay out that plan in specific terms in the days ahead.

We have watched and Canadians have watched with great dismay what has taken place over the last decade under the Liberal government. The Liberals have continually made election promises only to arrive in office and completely change the plan, breaking promise after promise. We all recall those famous red book reversals on GST, free trade and military spending. The list goes on and on.

If we want to have true accountability, there is going to have to be a lot of change within the chamber and the way we operate. Fixed election dates are a very good step in that direction.

Much of the arrogance and confidence demonstrated by this government stems from the fact that it can pull that plug at the most advantageous time. Again, a lot of the concentration of power in the PMO is the root cause of the so-called democratic deficit. There has been much written about this of late.

A centrepiece of the Prime Minister's appeal in this upcoming election seems to be his package of reforms and his discussion of what he has deemed the democratic deficit. In his speech in which he launched this, during the time in which he was undermining his predecessor, he stated:

In effect, the command-and-control systems of central authority in Ottawa have pushed the views of citizens and communities to the side.

I know I cannot use the word hypocrisy here, but when one looks at his record versus his words, it is clear that there is quite a gulf. No less an icon of Liberal Party ideology than Tom Kent stated in an article in the The Globe and Mail on January 29:

Conquering the democratic deficit is going to make [the current Prime Minister's] successful struggle against the financial deficit seem like child's play. He himself is now the command-and-control centre. To start democratic reform, to give new weight to the views of citizens and communities, he has only to forgo some of the prime minister's power.

So therein lies the secret. It is going to involve a devolution of power from the PMO itself, and that seems to be, for all leaders, one of the most difficult things to do: to give away some of this power, this power that has been concentrated, this all powerful feeling that one controls everything that goes on in one's purview.

Part of giving away that power, I suggest, would include having fixed election dates, just as it would include having more independent officers of Parliament who report directly to Parliament, and just as it would include giving the Auditor General the ability to go into crown corporations so we could avoid this spectacle of arm's length crown corporations not being accountable for their spending practices to the people of Canada through Parliament.

There is much that can be done. We have seen, over the past number of months in particular, a government that is adrift and without an agenda. Again, it can get away with that because it can wait and call that election when those polls hit that pivotal moment, that moment when the Liberals feel it is most to their advantage.

It is not unlike, I would suggest, the current situation with the election finance bill, which really should be called the incumbent's protection bill. Most Canadians do not understand that the Liberal government, the sitting government, receives a huge, disproportionate advantage in election financing as a result of the bill that it changed to its own advantage. We are not starting at the same point. It is as if we are running in a three-legged race and the Liberal government will be running free under this new legislation.

Without the benefit of fixed election dates, Canadians are in essence at the gunpoint of the Prime Minister, who has the sole authority to set an election date, just as he currently has the sole authority to appoint judges, which is another shortcoming in our system.

If anything, the media have shown us this political jockeying that has gone on between the current Prime Minister and his own cabinet and caucus. Even the most skilled horseman would be in awe at what an advantage there is in being able to jockey up to the starting line and then decide when the starting bell rings. Then, and only then, are they off, and the Liberals are the only ones at the line who know when it starts, so they can take a nice rolling start, as they used to say.

The Prime Minister has railed on and on about the democratic deficit. He has talked about it and he has promised to change things. Yet he has had over 10 years to act on some of these very same initiatives and we have seen nothing. This is a bit like a deathbed repentance. Now that he is going to be held accountable by the people, he is saying, “My goodness, I am going to do all these things. Honest, this time you should trust me”.

In conclusion, I very much support the initiative. I support this motion brought forward by the official opposition and my colleague from Vancouver.

I would ask that I be permitted to move an amendment at this time, seconded by my colleague from Saint John. I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing the last two paragraphs with:

“That, unless the Government loses the confidence of the House, general elections should be held on fixed dates every four years.”

That is to avoid any such conflict that the election would not be called if a government were to lose the confidence of the House. Again, it would add to the stability of this particular initiative.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Hinton)]

I have the amendment. Does the member have the consent of the mover of the motion?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Yes, Madam Speaker. The consent is there.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech given by my friend from across the way. In many respects it resembled a trip to the dollar store. It laid out a vast array of sparkling items, but in the end we are in a dollar store and nothing in it is worth more than a loonie.

I am quite intrigued by certain points that were raised. The member made the statement that it is difficult for leaders to give away their authority. Having regard to that, I would invite my friend to comment on his leader's authority. Let us remember the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, who was elected to the House by the people in that riding and who made a statement that his leader did not like. His leader ignored the democratic process and removed the member from their party.

How does this enormous power of his leader to remove people from that caucus, when in fact that person was elected to the House under the banner of that party, reconcile with his stated position about leaders giving away their authority?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am overjoyed to address that question, because in fact what our leader did, contrary to the Prime Minister's actions with regard to members of his party, was put the issue to a vote in our caucus.

What possibly could be more democratic than that? The member from Saskatchewan to whom he is referring was not expelled from the House. He is still a sitting member of the House. His constituents were not deprived of anything by the actions of the party itself as a whole.

The words that were spoken, without reciting that issue, were found to be offensive to many. There was very much a democratic decision and process followed, unlike, of course, what happened in the issue where nominated candidates were told by the Prime Minister they could not even run for office. They were denied the opportunity to even put their names forward and present themselves to the people of that constituency. That is a completely different situation than what we are talking about here today.

[An hon. member]

Big tears in Burnaby.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

We have seen all kinds of examples, and yes, tears were not enough to express how that individual from Burnaby was feeling.

I would suggest that there is quite a startling difference between the way his leader has been acting and the way our leader has acted, which has been in a very consultative way, engaging the caucus in the ability to make such an important decision.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate this member's speech. I am going to ask him a question about something that was not in the talk he gave, as I always respect his opinion. It is something that I want to mention in regard to the number of people in my riding and other places who certainly support the idea of fixed election dates.

Along with that, I quite often hear the comment that once a prime minister has been in office for two of those four year terms, it should be enough and he should not be allowed to continue. It is after many years of being in that position--and they refer to Mr. Trudeau more than anyone--that the arrogance sets in and negative changes happen.

What is his opinion on fixed terms for the prime minister, not only fixed election dates?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

As usual, Madam Speaker, we hear wise words from the member for Wild Rose. He brings to this House a straightforward, plain-talking, common sense approach that is respected not only by his constituents but certainly by members in this party and by Canadians generally.

I am very much of the same view that a leader, a prime minister, should not serve more than two terms in office. This is in fact the case in other countries. I believe very strongly that such a period of time, be it 8 years or 10 years, is sufficient in that role because it does start to stagnate. There is a “best before” date.

I would suggest that the current Prime Minister should take a long, hard look in the mirror in determining whether he will stay past his next term when he is sitting on the opposition side.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak from this side of the House to the official opposition motion calling for measures to establish a fixed election date. The main motion calls for the fixed date to be the third Monday of the month, that is four years after the month on which the most recently held general election day fell.

Let me start by saying that in my opinion this is a totally facile motion. It is an anti-parliamentary motion as it offends every principle of parliamentary law and convention. It is a motion that, if fully enacted, would reach in and disembowel the very constitutional framework of responsible parliamentary government.

Conversely, by this very motion, members of the official opposition have revealed to us and to Canadians their constitutional ignorance of several hundred years of Parliament. They further reveal to us and to all Canadians their desire to turn Parliament into the congress of Canada.

Last weekend a former prime minister, the right hon. Brian Mulroney, in endorsing the hon. Leader of the Opposition, called upon him to re-establish the principles of the party of Sir John A. Macdonald. Whatever one thinks of Sir John A. in terms of his political actions, he was a parliamentarian who upheld the constitutional law of Parliament. His party successor, Sir John Thompson, the man from Halifax, in his brief two years as prime minister, was a brilliant tactician in the House.

We have before us today a motion that is diametrically opposed to everything for which Sir John A. stood. He was the virtual founder of that party, the person who former Prime Minister Mulroney said they should emulate, who said in a speech:

To boast of nationality in one breath, and to cry for protection in another, is at once impertinent and unmanly; and resembles nothing so much as a hale young man of twenty-one under the guardianship of a dry nurse.

With that cry of nationality, he was a Canadian. Members of the party of Sir John A. Macdonald have said that they do not like one aspect of several hundred years of this House, of Parliament, parliamentary law, parliamentary convention and therefore they want to change it. They in fact would prefer an American style fixed election date.

The party of Sir John A. is here today crying for protection from a system that has existed for several hundred years. Members opposite suddenly have discovered that if they do not like it and it does not serve their interests, they will be, in the words of Sir John A., impertinent enough to say that the government should outlaw it, that it should banish it or that it should change it simply because they do not like it.

It was Benjamin Disraeli, a very close friend of their founder, Sir John A., also a Conservative prime minister, who said in 1872:

I look upon Parliamentary Government as the noblest government in the world.

Let us remember that the official opposition, with this motion because they do not like it, would eliminate confidence as the cornerstone of our system and in its place replace it with confidence of the House, which I would submit is a most simplistic view of parliamentary government; enacting and emboldening the balance between the legislature and executive branch, which is exactly what confidence is.

The motion refers to a political prerogative that is allegedly possessed by the Prime Minister, a prerogative the official opposition asserts is “to determine when Parliament should be dissolved for the purposes of a general election”. Those are not my words, those are the words from the motion put forward by members opposite.

That is, quite simply, preposterous. It is a remarkable but, above all, false interpretation of parliamentary government. What is being said is that the Crown, the sovereign, whose reserve powers are exercised by the Governor General, has no choice; that is, there can never be a situation when and where the Crown can refuse a dissolution and an election call.

According to our friends opposite, the Crown in this country, as represented by the Governor General, is irrelevant, that it has no reserve power. They are purporting to remove the personal power of the Crown and make this country a republic, in fact.

If members of the official opposition are calling for the abolition of the Crown or, as was tried unsuccessfully in Australia a few years ago, the removal of the Governor General and turning it into a republic, then why do they not say so? If they are opposed to the Crown, to the Governor General's very existence, why do they not say so?

The last great authority on parliamentary democracy was Eugene Forsey who, in his latter days, was a senator here and who died in the 1990s. He wrote extensively on our parliamentary system. He was, from all sides of the House and in all quarters, an acknowledged constitutional expert and an acknowledged expert on Parliament and it constituent parts. I would suggest it is fortunate that he is not here to witness how low the party of Sir John A. Macdonald has descended into a political abyss.

In his work, co-authored with his researcher, Grant Eglington, entitled “The Question of Confidence in Responsible Government”, a publication readily available from the Library of Parliament, which in fact published it, he wrote on page 1:

We also wish to make plain our opinion that it is extremely difficult to borrow particular features of the United States constitutional and political system without all the others, and without importing grave difficulties for ourselves.

On page 2, they wrote:

Even admirers of the American system of government must, if honest, admit that the American system is different from ours and that it is not possible to borrow from it certain of its distinguishing features unless we are prepared to adopt the others.

On the same page it reads:

The two systems of governance are incompatible precisely because we have responsible government and they [the Americans] do not;

Lastly, they note:

--the President of the United States need not and often does not find his policies supported by one or both Houses of the Congress. From this essential incompatibility all other differences flow. Change along American lines must mean constitutional revolution.

We have heard all this constitutional revolution talk from across the way. We have heard the desire of at least two members opposite who talked about their version and imposing on our Parliament a 22nd amendment of fixed terms, limited terms. It is a remarkable admission of their republican tendencies that they wish to take this place and turn it into an American style government. It confirms in my mind what many people are saying, that this is not the party of Sir John A. Macdonald. This is the Reform Party under a different name.

Our constitutional basis for confidence, that being the law and custom of Parliament, is based on Westminster precedent, which of course refers to the precedents and practices in the United Kingdom as well as other parts of the Commonwealth. According to the motion, the official opposition is now saying:

That, unless the Government loses the confidence of the House, general elections should be held on fixed dates;

What does the party opposite mean when it states “confidence”? Is it a vote on the Speech from the Throne, on the budget, on a budget implementation bill or on a line item on the estimates? Are they not concerned about a motion, as an example, to send troops to Iraq or some other part of the world? What would occur if the House defeated such a motion authorizing the cabinet's decision to send troops? That decision is truly a prerogative of the Crown as exercised by the cabinet.

Let us imagine what would have happened a year ago if we had followed the stated and avowed position of the official opposition to send troops to Iraq. Let us imagine the House, by simple resolution, saying that it did not approve. Such a vote of disapproval might have been a confidence vote because of the clear sense of the public mind on the issue. What is certain is that confidence is much more complex, more nuanced and more subtle than a defeat on a simple monetary matter.

The reserve prerogative of the Crown to dissolve Parliament and to issue an election writ is in fact the primary and fundamental role of the Crown. Ultimately it is the sovereign right or, in Canada, the Governor General exercising the sovereign rights, who will make the decisions based upon the law and precedent of Parliament.

In the late 1930s, in the parliament of South Africa, the prime minister, Jan Smuts, lost a vote in that country's House of Commons concerning South Africa declaring itself neutral on the eve of World War II. The prime minister went to the governor general and asked for a dissolution. The governor general said no. He refused because there was an alternative leader to form a government. So much for the myth perpetrated across the way that this is a political prerogative.

Let us look at Canada in 1926 and the so called King-Byng affair, a clash over a denied request for dissolution notwithstanding a defeat on what many believed to be non-confidence against the King government. The governor general at that time asked a Conservative, Arthur Meighen, to form a government.

There are many views on this, but what is agreed upon out of all of that is that the governor general, exercising the sovereign's Crown reserve power, had the exclusive right and authority to gauge whether the House would be dissolved and we would go to an election, but no, our republican friends across the way here, our Reform friends, our Alliance friends, our new Conservative republicans would decide that they would strip those powers and they would be the ones who would decide. In fact, they would eliminate confidence.

This motion of the official opposition is, I would submit, void because it is uncertain. It has no meaning. It fails to acknowledge that elections following dissolution are within the exclusive purview of the Crown. It would strip the Crown of any powers. It attacks, most important, several hundred years of Parliamentary government and of representative government.

The official opposition by this motion fails to mention that this issue has already been rejected overwhelmingly by a majority of parliaments. Instead it points to this nascent idea which is emerging in British Columbia. It fails to recognize that the vast majority, the overwhelming majority, in fact a majority minus one, has said that such a concept is unacceptable, that such a concept is, quite frankly, unparliamentary. Members opposite would point to one example and say, “This is the rule. This is the way we must all go”.

In 1992 the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, the Lortie commission, rejected it. Members opposite might also want to read the works of Alpheus Todd. Alpheus Todd was the chief librarian of the Parliament of Canada. He was the acknowledged parliamentary constitutional expert. They might, I hope, in reading, learn something of our institution called the House of Commons and our institution called Parliament. I would recommend they examine the enacting clause of every bill before the House, that is to say:

Her Majesty, by and with the consent of the Senate and the House of Commons, enacts as follows:

I would ask them to examine their position regarding the role of the Crown. Opposition members should look to the role and relationship of Parliament to the Crown and acknowledge that under our Constitution there is a constitutional design. It is about the distribution and the sharing of powers among this House, the other place and at the top of it, the Crown. But no, they say that the Crown has no powers. They are the new age republicans.

Again I will say, if the Conservative Party members wish to change Canada into a republic, then let them say it. If the official opposition wishes to constrain or eliminate the Crown, or the most fundamental reserve powers of the Crown, the last powers it possesses, then let the Conservatives put it into their party platform rather than hiding behind a motion in the House, or worse yet, a private member's bill from their leader.

When the opposition members do not like something they hear, they like to heckle. One thing we can all agree upon is that the party opposite is clearly not the party of Sir John A. Macdonald. Despite former Prime Minister Mulroney's entreaty last week for it to be a moderate party, to embrace the principles of Sir John A. Macdonald, it is in fact embracing American principles.

Let the Conservative members reveal in their party platform what they are really about. Are they asking us to embrace a fixed election date as if we were a republic? Are they asking us even further to embrace a 22nd amendment to limit terms? Why do they not come out and say it?

I am certain that people will recognize this as a most unparliamentary motion and that it is new age jingoism. It will be rejected by the House because it is an attack upon the House.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member should have looked at the Globe and Mail on January 29 of this year when an icon Liberal Party gentleman, Tom Kent, stated:

The fount of authority is the prime minister's power to dissolve Parliament when he chooses--a fearsome discipline over his own party. The even greater offence to democracy is that other parties are put at a serious disadvantage, as they cannot be sure when and on what issue or pretext an election will be called. Will [the Prime Minister] free Parliament from arbitrary dissolution? That would indeed shift the balance of power away from the “command-and-control systems of central authority” and toward a representative democracy that better reflects “the views of citizens and communities”.

That was from an icon Liberal. Tom Kent is well known. The hon. member should recognize that Tom Kent is also saying that it is time for change.

When the hon. member talks about our Queen, the head of state, let me say that the hon. member forgets that I got up and had words with the previous prime minister. The deputy leader at that time wanted to break all ties from the Liberal Party from Canada with our Queen. I was able to say them and I do not want to hear that from him any more. Apparently he does not listen to anything.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I quite enjoy the bluster from the member opposite. She once again will rely on one person, Mr. Tom Kent, who was a Liberal. In fact I met with him in early February at Queen's University. She would hang her hat, figuratively speaking, on one person's written comments in the Globe and Mail on the date cited. She would say that the opinion of one Liberal would in fact be the opinion of the Liberal Party. I am not even certain that Mr. Kent is a Liberal today. I have no way of knowing.

She would turn her back on 300 years of this place. She would care to heckle instead of listening to the response. She is nattering on. The fact of the matter is that the 300 years of precedents in this place make clear that fixed election dates are impossible. Instead, she reverts to a column in a newspaper and says that is good enough for her. I am singing a duet with her because she will not allow me to answer.

In terms of the Crown, the member opposite swears her allegiance, but in fact I am certain that we in the House have already heard her speak of her support for this motion. If she would care to think about it and read it, this motion is a direct attack on the Crown, an office to which she has just said she is extremely loyal. I find it quite a remarkable position. The member opposite, in asking that question, has revealed she can assume two positions at the same time. It is quite remarkable. It is a form of mental gymnastics which I think most people would find irreconcilable and I am ashamed to say she has assumed that.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I heard correctly, but I think my friend across the way said that the member for Saint John was launching a direct attack on the Crown. I remember the days when we used to be crusaders for radical change in this country. I hope he has not changed his mind on replacing the other place with something that is a bit more contemporary. I hope he does not also see that as an attack on the Crown.

On February 11 of this year I introduced a motion in the House of Commons for a fixed election date. The Conservatives, always being slow, copied my idea when the leader of the party introduced a motion on April 1, 2004. It is on the Order Paper, Madam Speaker, and I can see from your wide smile that you have read the Order Paper and you know that has happened.

I want to say to the member across the way that we do have a precedent on fixed election dates. That is not an attack on the Crown. His good friend, the premier of British Columbia, has fixed an election date. He fixed it a couple of years ago for four years hence.

I see a big smile on the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, my good Conservative friend. In our province one of our political icons, Tommy Douglas, had a fixed election date. He was elected in June 1944, June 1948, June 1952, June 1956 and June 1960. That date was set not by statute, but was announced publicly by the premier in 1944 that there would be elections every four years in the month of June. Tommy told me shortly before he passed away that the only regret he had was that he should have put it in a statute to make it mandatory because after he left as the premier of Saskatchewan, the election dates bounced all over the place.

I do not think it is an attack on the Crown. It is just good common sense to take power away from the premiers and the Prime Minister's Office and put it in the hands of the people by setting a fixed date, unless in a motion of confidence the government falls. We have always talked about that being the only exception.

I would like the member to respond to the common sense idea of Tommy Douglas and his good friend in British Columbia. I want him to explain how it is an attack on the Crown.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy the questions from my friend opposite.

With respect to his comments on crusading, something I remember with great pleasure and relish, my friend knows that Parliament is comprised of three parts: the Crown, the House of Commons, and the Senate. Any comments about the Senate have nothing to do with the Crown.

My colleague asked about my so-called attack on the Crown. It is very clear that if we are going to purport to legislate, codify, put into a statute, a law that would remove the last vestige, the most important power of the Crown, which is the right to dissolve Parliament and call an election at any time, putting it in a statute would be an attack upon the reserve powers of the sovereign.

Despite all the gibberish coming from members opposite who do not like to hear something, this is a direct attempt to remove any role of the Crown in this place. They can laugh all they want because they have not read a book about it. They have not considered it. They just follow along blindly. It is indeed an attack upon the very basis of responsible government, of representative government, and of parliamentary government. The official opposition would prefer to import American-style governance.

The member raised the example of what occurred 40 or 50 years ago in Saskatchewan. That was a decision taken by the premier, which was his right. He did not make the mistake of putting it into a statute. He understood that he could decide.

The member mentioned British Columbia where Mr. Campbell apparently enacted a law. Those members say that one law in one province out of about 100 parliamentary democracies is a wave, that it is the rule we should follow. One out of 100, one per cent is good enough for them. It is good enough for them because they do not like the present system and they want to undo it.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I hope all Canadians are listening to the analogy coming from the opposite side. Members opposite are trying to say that we cannot have fixed election dates and have a sovereign Governor General and Queen. That is nonsense. I hope people heard that.

In the member's province of Ontario, there are five million people in the greater Toronto area and they must have an election on a set date. In Prince Edward Island, which has a population less than that of a small city, elections can be held at any time. Fixed election dates make sense today. There is nothing wrong with them.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a lover of fiction and that is why I enjoyed the question from the member opposite.

What the member does not understand is that municipalities are creations of the provinces. What the member opposite is revealing is a complete disdain and lack of knowledge of the constitutional design. He said that a city has a constitutional position in this country and that it changes nothing. That is a very sad and pathetic comment.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the members from the Conservative Party, as do my Bloc and NDP colleagues, for the opportunity they have provided this morning to discuss this issue.

I was stunned and upset to hear the remarks by my Liberal colleague when he talked about an attack on the Crown. First, we may wonder if the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard was installed only as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada or if he was crowned monarch of Canada. That is the question; what are his powers as Prime Minister? This is about one single member, the member for LaSalle—Émard, not elected as Prime Minister, holding everyone hostage with regard to the election date. Is that Canadian democracy?

It is deplorable. He is acting like a monarch, we will admit. The current Prime Minister is seen as a monarch and it is said that his prerogatives are under attack. Of course, the very essence of the motion is precisely to remove the arbitrary nature of partisan decisions from the hands of the Prime Minister. Let us not forget that. For nearly a year, everyone has been on edge waiting for the next election, the Liberals in particular.

The Prime Minister is not often in the House. He is travelling here and there. He goes to visit day care centres where there are little children, so that he can show he is a good prime minister with a good heart, while in fact he has made savage cuts in social programs. We will come back to that later. He goes to hospitals to say he is full of compassion for the patients, although once again, he has made savage cuts in health expenditures. He just does it to polish his image. He also goes to meet students although he has made savage cuts in the education budget.

He does it to polish his image and polish up the polls. With the influence he has, touring Quebec and Canada—and not being in Parliament, where he has not been contributing much for nearly a year—he wants to make himself look good in order to be able to choose the most favourable moment to call the election.

Is it normal that essentially the bills passed since he became leader of the Liberal Party are old bills from the Chrétien years? Where is the current Prime Minister's parliamentary agenda? Where is the comprehensive legislative agenda? For the past two and a half years or so, since the Liberal leadership race began, he had been saying that he was ready. True, we heard the same thing in Quebec City last year from Mr. Charest. He said, “We are ready”. The results are clear. Governance in Quebec is a huge fiasco.

But, the Prime Minister said he was ready. So, we thought he had a legislative agenda and reforms to propose, and that he would quickly move forward with his vision of the country. But what is his vision? Up to now, his vision is extremely partisan. Given how the current Prime Minister is hesitating, we see that he has difficulty making decisions. He has this proverbial difficulty. We know him. I, especially, know him, because he has been sitting across from me for nine years. We know him especially well. He is someone who has difficulty making decisions.

Will the entire population of 30 million and an entire Parliament wait with bated breath until the Prime Minister says, “Yes, we are calling an election”? What nonsense. Can one man, one member, who has not even been elected Prime Minister, get away with holding an entire Parliament, opposition parties and supporters of all parties, including his own, hostage for an entire year because he cannot make up his mind? It is disgraceful.

If it is traditional for the Prime Minister to pick the election date, perhaps it is time to change that tradition. This is not an attack on the Crown, it is about ensuring that democracy functions as it should. It is not normal for one man to hold everyone hostage this way. This is called a democratic deficit.

Things are changing. A poll was conducted when the steering committee on the reform of democratic institutions in Quebec held its annual conference last year. There was a poll on how people perceived the Prime Minister's prerogative to be the only person able to decide when to hold an election. According to the poll, 82% of Quebeckers perceived this as a strategic weapon that prime ministers use for purely partisan political purposes.

The public is already beginning to realize that a system such as this makes no sense.

To paraphrase the words of my Conservative colleague and my NDP colleague, British Columbia already made the decision in 2001 to adopt a set date for their elections. Even the steering committee on the reform of democratic institutions in Quebec, to which I have referred, has made a proposal on this. The municipal elections are held on a set date. Why would anyone reject such a proposal of electoral reform out of hand?

I think there is only one reason to adopt this system of elections on a set date every four years as the Conservative Party of Canada proposes: to allow democracy to speak. We must not continue a system where the government side can try to influence public opinion through all manner of strategies and stratagems. The Prime Minister is all over the map these days, in schools, daycare centres, posing eating poutine, anything to try to influence public opinion in favour of the Liberal Party.

It seems to me that we could prepare for the election at the appropriate time. At least that way Parliament would function properly for four years. That way we would not be keeping the supporters of the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the NDP on tenterhooks for a whole year. WIth a set date, we would know what was going to happen, it would be predictable. The government would simply have to toe the line in the meantime by presenting legislative measures that made some sense.

I think that the Liberals are getting cold feet about the possibility of having to face the voters of Quebec and Canada after all that they have done over the nearly 11 years they have been in power. The current Prime Minister, when he was finance minister, pillaged social programs, and the transfer payments for health care, education, and welfare. Now the Liberals are quaking in their boots at the prospect of having to face Quebeckers and Canadians.

They are afraid because what they have done over the years in terms of employment insurance reform is beginning to haunt them. One cannot exclude about 60% of the unemployed and treat them like cheaters in the first place because they made an administrative error while filling out their forms. The government cannot expect to get people's trust at the next election after making them poorer.

The Liberals are afraid to face the unemployed. They are afraid to face the sick and the students who are anxious to show them what they think of their government. They are also afraid to face seniors. The Liberals did not tell seniors about the guaranteed income supplement for years. Seniors were robbed of $3 billion. This money was taken from the poorest in our society, from our seniors. They too cannot wait to tell the Liberals what they think of them.

I am anxiously waiting for the election call. If we had a fixed election date, we would know when we would face Liberal candidates. Federal Liberals from Quebec did not lift a finger to protect Quebec, to protect the poorest people in our society, including seniors. They did not lift a finger to protect students and sick people. I cannot wait to see the Liberals facing these people.

I too am looking forward to facing Liberal candidates. Quebeckers are unanimous on the issue of fiscal imbalance. Whether it is the Parti Quebecois or the Quebec Liberal Party, they are all unanimous. Quebeckers want the federal government to settle the fiscal imbalance, because it does not make any sense. All the money is in Ottawa, but all the needs are in essential services such as health and education. Again, I am anxious to face the Liberals and tell them that they did not lift a finger to protect Quebec, to correct the fiscal imbalance, on which there is unanimity.

That is why they are afraid to call the election. That is why the Prime Minister is eating hot dogs everywhere, and is going to visit children in day care; there may be a spot of Pablum on his suit.

I am eager because the sponsorship scandal happened while the Prime Minister was finance minister and vice-president of the Treasury Board. Chuck Guité, who testified last week, said that the office of the finance minister at the time was definitely involved in sponsorships. All the Liberals, in the end, are involved right up to their necks in the sponsorship scandal. I am eager to get out and meet them on their territory, so I can toss it up in their faces.

That is why they are afraid to call the election. They are not really aware that for nearly a year we have been at the ready, waiting to find out if one day the current prime minister will make up his mind. Perhaps it will be one of the first significant political decisions he makes in his life, because he has not made many of them. He has let his officials in the finance department call the shots, or watched things happen and pretended he did not see them, especially in the sponsorship scandal.

For example, I am eager to see what the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry will say during the next election about the highway extension he promised during the 2000 election campaign. His colleagues came to his riding and said, “You will see; the government will do it”. He got elected on that issue. He also go elected on the question of job preservation. He has lost nearly 100 of them because the Governor of the Bank of Canada has decided to buy paper for $100 bills from Germany. That is a big symbol of Canadian nationalism—Canadian currency.

We talked about using the U.S. dollar out of pragmatism because it would be easier and would avoid the speculation we experienced a few years ago when the money market in Southeast Asia collapsed. The shock wave reverberated here with unbelievable fluctuations in the Canadian dollar. Our position was pragmatic.

We were told it was a matter of Canadian nationalism. The Canadian dollar supposedly symbolizes the difference between Canada and the U.S. in social programs and such. Now this symbol is imported from Germany because the hon. member did not even lift a finger to save a hundred or so jobs at Spexel.

It is quite simply appalling. I cannot wait to see how he will face voters in the next election. I look forward to going to Beauharnois—Salaberry and to other Quebec federal Liberal ridings as well. I can hardly wait. I will stay in my riding, of course, roughly half the time and the other half I will spend taking them to task. They have not addressed any of the issues that have become important to Quebec over the years such as parental leave, the fiscal imbalance or the environment. The St. Lawrence will not be dredged according to them. Of course not. The federal Liberals from Quebec say this will not happen. No, but if complacency prevails then it will happen. There needs to be protest and pressure placed on their government. Instead, they just say it will not happen.

Nothing will be done about Spexel either. Six years ago, the Bank of Canada wanted to use German paper. The Bloc Quebecois put pressure on the bank. I even met with the Governor of the Bank of Canada to prevent them from doing that. My colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, recently did the same thing. The Liberal member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is the only one who did not lift a finger to prevent the bank from making this decision, even though we, Bloc Quebecois members, were able to do so for several years.

During the next election campaign—assuming it will take place and assuming the Prime Minister will make up his mind—we will pay them a few visits. They will have to do some explaining, particularly to the unemployed. They will have a lot of explaining to do, because the unemployed are probably those who have suffered the most. In addition to losing their jobs and their dignity, and being treated like cheaters, they have had to deal with federal Liberal members who, again, did not lift a finger to help them. People, and that includes yours truly, are just fed up with this.

So, if the next election could be called and if there was a fixed election date, members would know when they would be up against the Liberal candidates. When the election is called, my colleagues from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, Joliette and Trois-Rivières, and all my Bloc Quebecois colleagues will tour Quebec and, each of us according to our field of expertise—my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie on the environment, my colleague from Joliette on public finance and the fiscal imbalance—will remind everyone what those people do when elected.

[An hon. member]

And what they do not do.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

And also what they do not do. As a result, people will realize that the best investment they can make is to support political activists such as the Bloc candidates who, since 1993, have proven that they are the only ones defending Quebeckers and the only ones defending the dignity of seniors, from whom this government has literally stolen under the Minister of Finance, who masterminded the cuts for nine years. We will tell the public that we are the only ones—and they know this—able to defend the interests of the most vulnerable members of our society, as well as students and environmentalists.

I think that we will succeed in showing them too that we are an honest party. We are not up to our necks in the sponsorship scandal or the mismanagement of the firearms registry, which was initially supposed to cost $2 million and is now costing $2 billion.

I really think that, this time, Quebeckers will understand that it is in their interest to vote for the Bloc Quebecois, for true activists who defend their interests in Ottawa. We are not only spokespeople, but passionate and forceful defenders of their interests. We will get rid of that gang of federal Liberals from Quebec who have not bothered to lift a finger to defend jobs and ensure the accountability of the health care system and education, and simply the proper management of public funds.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, it pains me to hear speeches like this. When the people opposite waste time on a motion that goes against our very own parliamentary framework, as they are doing today, it clearly demonstrates that the opposition does not have much to say about major national and international issues.

If these people were serious about this, they would have brought forward a motion to amend the Canadian Constitution in order to change the Canadian parliamentary framework.

The Canadian Constitution currently provides for a five year mandate. So, we cannot go over that five year limit. At a fixed date, at the end of the five-year mandate, there is automatically an election. No government, no party elected to run the country can go over the five-year limit. That is in the Constitution. Now, should we change the mandate to four years, three years, five and a half years or four and a half years, that is another matter.

We too are anxious to see an election so that we may debate these issues, most certainly. I would invite everyone to come to the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry during the next election campaign. We will make sure the truth comes out. We will clearly demonstrate that the Bloc Quebecois is now fighting to defeat the Government of Quebec, as well as the Government of Canada. In fact, this is a party that has no other purpose but to defeat governments. It claims to want to defend the interests of Quebec in Ottawa, but it is working in fact against the Government of Quebec in Quebec.

What is more, these people have a disgusting propensity to tell lies by the dozen. Take their candidate in Beauharnois—Salaberry for example, who has announced to me, and this from the Bloc Quebecois itself, that I voted against one of their motions. As you are clearly aware, the record of the division indicates that I voted in favour of that motion, which concerned seasonal workers. So they are specialists in disinformation.

It is more or less the same thing here. The opposition wants to introduce a motion just to waste time, to drag things out. If they really want to change the parliamentary framework, let them introduce a motion to amend the Canadian Constitution. Constitutional amendments require unanimous consent by the provinces. So what purpose is there to debating a motion that in fact is pointless? Let them introduce a motion to amend the Canadian Constitution.

I am not opposed to having a fixed date, mandates set at five years, four years or whatever. But the parliamentary system we have allows the executive to go before the population at what it deems to be the right time. For example, a debate on free trade became an election issue for the Conservatives at one time. Today, the Conservative Alliance has replaced them.

So this is a tool, a system that allows a government to consult the population at the appropriate time, with a view to making progress, holding a national debate on an important cause. The government can do that. But, if there were a fixed mandate, doing so would be rather difficult.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, we will not ask for a change in the Constitution; we have not even accepted the Constitution of 1982. This is basic political history, which the member should have mastered. Still, if one is not in the habit of defending the interests of Quebec, one is not going to know one's history. I cannot expect too much of him.

When he says that the true nature of the Bloc Quebecois will be revealed in an election campaign; well, hurry up and call the election. We are ready to compare our record to yours. We are so ready that it should be easy for people to make a choice between the party of the sponsorship scandal and the party of integrity and honesty—the Bloc Quebecois. It will be very easy.

It will also be easy to see who the people were who asked the government the questions that put them up against the wall for the scandals such as employment insurance. There were also the Prime Minister's ships, with headquarters in Barbados so as to profit from a $100 million tax saving, thanks to a bill the finance minister himself introduced here in 1998. The people know what is going on.

I, too, am eager for the election call. We in the Bloc Quebecois will be able to say that we were the only defenders of the people of Quebec in the issue of employment insurance, and we will walk with our heads held high. I can speak for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, because I am the member for that riding. Unemployed people who have problems in the riding of Shefford, for example, are not going to see their member. The hon. member for Shefford was once the parliamentary secretary to the former minister of human resources development. In fact, when they go to see her, what are they told? They are told that if the officials in the department have said that they cheated and were not entitled to employment insurance, well then, they are not entitled.

They come over to Saint-Hyacinthe. I do not know how many men and women who have had problems with EI in Granby have come to Saint-Hyacinthe to get them solved—and we have been able to do it. The former parliamentary secretary to the former minister of human resources development closed the door of her office saying, “Do not bother me with that. The department said it was that way; so that is the way it is”. People remember.

The ridings are not cut off from each other. People also remember that when it comes to seniors, it was our colleague from Champlain who pulled the rabbit out of the hat. The Bloc Quebecois toured with our colleague from Champlain to meet representatives from associations that look after destitute seniors. We told them that there were some people—some of the poorest people in society—who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement up to $6,000 a year. That can be the difference between poverty and relative wealth.

We did this. Out of 68,000 seniors in Quebec who did not receive the guaranteed income supplement, we managed to help nearly 20,000. We will not stop there. During the election and throughout our mandate, we will continue to look for these people. It took six months of our initiatives before the federal Liberals from Quebec started to say that it would be a good idea to include a few words on the guaranteed income supplement in the pamphlets they send out to homes. It is unbelievable. It is politicking like we have never seen.

People are not naive. They know that only the Bloc Quebecois is there to stand up for them. The good thing about the Bloc Quebecois is that it defends the social, moral and economic interests of Quebeckers. Since they were elected, that is not what the federal Liberals from Quebec, let alone the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, have set out to do. He did not lift a finger for the workers at Spexel. They will certainly remember.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my friend from the Bloc Quebecois. Currently, British Columbia is the only Canadian province where they have fixed election dates. In Saskatchewan, a long time ago, during the days of Tommy Douglas, there was nothing in the statutes, but there was a fixed date in June, by convention. Mr. Douglas was elected in 1944. During the election campaign, he announced that, from then on, an election would be held every four years. In Saskatchewan, elections were held in June of 1948, 1952, 1956 and 1960. But there were many other New Democrat premiers who did not follow the example set by Mr. Douglas. It is the same thing with every other party in Canada.

Here is my question. Under Mr. Lévesque and other Quebec premiers, namely Daniel Johnson, Jacques Parizeau, Lucien Bouchard and Bernard Landry, why did the Parti Quebecois reject the idea of a fixed election date at the provincial level? This is not at all meant to be a criticism of the Parti Quebecois. In fact, we are all in the same boat, except Mr. Campbell in British Columbia now, and Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan, a long time ago.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my New Democratic colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle for his question. As he said, there were Parti Quebecois governments, but also Liberal ones, during the past 30 years in Quebec's National Assembly.

Recently, the Parti Quebecois government struck a committee, called an estates general on democratic governance, to study the reform of its democratic institutions. It invited Quebeckers to take part in a broad debate on the future of such institutions and on how we vote. One of the committee's recommendations is to have fixed election dates.

I talked earlier about a poll of Quebeckers. It found that 82% of respondents viewed the fact that there are not fixed election dates and that it is entirely up to the Prime Minister to decide to hold an election on a specific date as a partisan exercise forming part of an election strategy, and so forth. People no longer want this.

So, the time is ripe for change. I am pleased to hear the member say that, in Saskatchewan, this has been the case for quite some time. There were visionaries and forerunners there. In my opinion, this is the point we are at, and the public is with us on this.