Mr. Speaker, the member who spoke before me stated that the previous government was turfed. I think the Liberal government will face the same fate as soon as the election is called.
I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in today's debate on the Conservative supply day motion calling upon the government to establish fixed dates for federal general elections. The motions reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, there being a serious democratic deficit in Canada, particularly in the domination of the executive over the House of Commons by providing to the Prime Minister the sole political prerogative to determine when Parliament should be dissolved for the purpose of a general election;
That, unless the government loses the confidence of the House, general elections should be held on fixed dates; and
That the government should bring in measures to establish fixed election dates to be held on the third Monday of the month that is four years after the month in which the polling day for the most recently held general election fell.
That is the motion we are debating today and the status quo has gone on for far too long. In the last few months, constituents have been asking me when the election will take place. I have been telling them that my guess is as good as theirs. No one in this country knows.
Before I move further, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Blackstrap. She has significant issues to contribute to this campaign and we would like to listen to her as well.
The Liberals have been calling the election depending on their chances of winning that election. The status quo as to when to call the election is very opportunistic politically at present.
The discretion to call an election, however, remains a powerful weapon in the armoury of the Prime Minister to use for partisan advantage, as shown by the last leader of the Liberal Party. Jean Chrétien fuelled a lot of cynicism about the electoral process during his 10 years in office by calling elections whenever it suited his political agenda or when the polls indicated it was appropriate for him to call an election, gauging his political opportunities.
Despite comfortable majorities in the House and no burning issues requiring a mandate, Mr. Chrétien went to the Canadian public twice in seven years. As my colleague has indicated from a mathematical aspect, we know that elections are called simply because the government knows that the voters will return it to office irrespective of the cost to the taxpayers.
Our current Prime Minister appears anxious to follow in his predecessor's footsteps by calling an election just three and a half years into a mandate, and this despite the promise he made to do things differently and address the democratic deficit.
The way the ruling party can control election dates makes up a huge portion of the democratic deficit that has destroyed the faith of many Canadians in their own government.
With careful polling and strategic spending and policies designed to win over key segments of voters, the ruling party gains a huge advantage. On the other hand, the whole country is left in limbo. One just has to imagine 308 candidates multiplied by at least four parties, plus independent candidates. This is compounded by various campaign managers and campaign teams of all the candidates.
One just has to look at the Elections Canada staff. How much staff is in limbo? What about all the other organizations and individuals associated with the election, such as the sign companies, the telephone companies, the people who print the brochures and other literature, the leasing companies for vehicles and other items, even the office equipment, office supplies and office space?
This is contributing to uncertainty. The candidates cannot make any long term commitments to any events or anything of that sort because they do not know when the election will be called
Look at the inefficiency this whole mechanism has created in terms of dollars, time, commitment and so on. We cannot have an agenda in the House of Commons. I have a private member's bill ready to be introduced, but I cannot introduce it because I do not know how long we are going to sit here. If I were to introduce it, then I would have to come back again and reintroduce it, if I am re-elected. It depends on so many things.
So much inefficiency is created by this uncertain and opportunistic process by the government. No wonder voter apathy is mounting against the government and no wonder we have a low turnout in elections from time to time. We cannot be innovative in reforming the electoral process in general because of all these uncertainties surrounding this issue.
How about proportional representation? What a wonderful idea and concept, but it cannot be introduced because so many things have to be done within electoral reform.
Despite the promise, Canadians are still saddled with an elected dictatorship in the country. The power is concentrated in the PMO and the companies supporting the Prime Minister at this time. The Prime Minister is using his control over his members of Parliament in his caucus, whether it is voting in the House, driving the agenda, and so on.
Now that the Prime Minister has all the power, he is just as reluctant as his predecessor to let go of any of it. The Prime Minister's record shows clearly that he has no interest in addressing any democratic deficit issues and they have been mounting ever since.
I am proud to stand up and say to the House that this party, the official opposition of Canada, has been lobbying for the elimination of the democratic deficit for many years.
Further, the Liberals failed to appoint an independent ethics commissioner and still continue to have the lapdog of the Prime Minister. It is despite the fact that it was promised in the red book in 1993 that an independent ethics commissioner would be appointed who would report to Parliament. However, it did not happen that way.
Similarly, it has been promised, and the Prime Minister said he would address the issue of free votes in the House of Commons. We still see the caucus members of the Liberal Party clapping like trained seals.
It is similar with Senate reform. The Liberal cronies, the defeated candidates, are appointed to the Senate, whereas the democratically elected candidates are not appointed to the Senate. The representation in the Senate from Canada's western provinces, where I come from, remains unaddressed.
Our electoral system allows less than 40% of the vote to translate into a majority government in this country. The Liberal government abdicates Parliament's responsibility as the law-making body of Canada to the courts. How big is the democratic deficit there? The definition of marriage is to be decided by the courts.
All these issues concerning citizen initiatives and that all MPs should be treated equally in the House did not happen. Another factor within electoral reform is the nomination process. For 14 years, non-Canadian instant members have been pre-selecting candidates to be finally selected by the general Canadian population to be elected and sent as their representative to Parliament. Discretion is okay, but there is a big flaw in the process. All these issues need to be addressed.
If the Prime Minister were serious about amending the democratic deficit, he would have to agree with established fixed election dates. If he opposes this motion, it will reveal that he is not serious about dealing with the democratic deficit, but is simply engaged in typical window dressing and half-baked measures.