Debates of April 27th, 2004

Supply

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the irrelevant part of the member's statement across the way had to do with the Governor General. As a matter of fact, it is the Governor General who has the only legal power to dissolve Parliament for the purpose of an election. That is the way our Constitution reads right now.

I suppose it begs the question, but the real issue here is that the Prime Minister is the one who gives the Governor General the signal. That has become the convention. Under the pattern of responsible government, it is still up to the Prime Minister on the governing side to make the decision. The Governor General has not, I think in error, refused the dissolution of Parliament on the last two occasions because in each instance the government had a clear majority. The government has a clear majority now. There is no reason for an election. Legally, the Governor General could stop it, but the Prime Minister alone has the prerogative. That is wrong.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada there is only one man in the country who can call an election. We know that when one man has the power to call an election, is it an elected dictatorship or a democracy?

However, with due respect, the Governor General only rubber stamps the decision made by that single person in the whole country. That is very undemocratic.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to our motion this afternoon. It states:

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 purposes 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.

This is truly a timely motion. Canadians have been held in an electoral limbo for several months, and thanks to the government they have been without real leadership for more than a year.

Under the Constitution an election must be held every five years. Traditionally, general elections take place every four years or so. In the hands of a democratically minded government, this system of calling an election works reasonably well and in the interests of Canadians. In the hands of the Liberal government, however, the issue of when to call a federal election has become an exercise in political and public manipulation.

We saw that clearly during the reign of our former Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, as he used the threat of a snap election to control his caucus on crucial legislative decisions. It was the same shifting date scenario when it came to his pending retirement and the election of a new party leader.

The current Prime Minister is fond of attacking the democratic deficit and of telling Canadians how he will eliminate this blight on the relationship between the government and its subjects. Eliminating the Prime Minister's ability to call an election whenever he chooses by setting fixed election dates would be an excellent first step in addressing this democratic deficit. Yet, the Prime Minister continues to paralyze Canadians and Parliament, while he waits for the most opportune time for his party to survive an election.

Elections should not be called on the personal whim of a prime minister, depend on favourable political polls, or whatever else the prime minister is worried about. In an era where voter turnout is low, where young people are disenchanted and disinterested in how our country is governed, and where there is great concern about how our tax dollars are spent, such self-serving behaviour is an insult to all Canadians.

Fixed election dates would remove much of the uncertainty we now face. Canadians would not be wondering each day whether the Prime Minister has made a decision.

Barring a situation of non-confidence, Canadians would know with certainty when to expect the next federal election. Parliament would not be at a standstill, with MPs and senators working with largely recycled legislation. There would be new bills, with appropriate time for debate, committee study and revisions.

Electoral candidates and organizers would not be wondering when they should invest resources in their campaigns and preparatory efforts. Again, consistent time frames could be established. Knowing exactly when the next election would be held would also add some transparency to a system of government that badly needs it.

Pre-election spending sprees would be more identifiable for what they truly are, as would premature campaign visits disguised as government business. There are some who would criticize fixed election dates as too American in style or in nature, that such a system would be inconsistent with the confidence convention that demands a government retain the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons or resign.

That concern is addressed by this motion. It states:

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

The integrity of our parliamentary system, based on the older, more establish British parliamentary system, would remain intact. The bottom line is that this motion just makes good common sense. Having fixed election dates makes good common sense. Making government and participation in the democratic system more palatable to Canadians makes good common sense.

During his next election campaign, commencement date unknown, the Prime Minister will try to sell Canadians on his package of electoral reforms to address the democratic deficit.

He has stated:

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

We agree.

Now, today, we have an opportunity to eliminate some of that centralized control. I encourage the Prime Minister and his colleagues to take this step and show that they really are serious about dealing with the democratic deficit and about re-engaging Canadians.

Elections are about more than choosing a Prime Minister and elected representatives. Those choices reflect Canadians' interests, views, values and policy objectives. Elections determine the people who will help implement those interests for the next half decade.

The electoral process must be as fair as possible, with all parties and individual candidates being as prepared as possible. Unfortunately, that cannot be the case when only one party knows when the election will be held. Everyone else is put in a situation of extreme disadvantage, and that is not in the best interests of Canadians or of a truly democratic process.

I would like to conclude with some personal thoughts. I was elected in 2000. That was another election that was called on a whim. I remember that the prime minister at the time even said it was because our leader of the day challenged him. I saw how disrespectful that prime minister was of his power, power that only he had. Then I watched him as he did the same thing with his resignation. Now our current Prime Minister is doing the same. It seems they have no faith or respect for the electorate. I remember that the campaign in 2000 was all about how we were going to kill health care and pensions, ridiculous notions.

Are you signalling that I am out of time, Mr. Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

No, it is not a question of time. There are still three minutes left. It is a question of relevance.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Again, Mr. Speaker? We are having a hard time keeping this debate relevant.

We are talking about democratic deficit and the government still insists on perpetuating fallacies. When will the Liberal government realize that we are serving an intelligent electorate that wants to make an informed vote? It should stop trying to fool the electorate with misinformation and get to the real business of governing.

Let us take away the distraction of when an election will be held so that the real issues and legislation get the attention they deserve. That is relevant.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the comments by the member.

In the democratic deficit, there are many black holes that have never been plugged. One of the big holes is that 80% of the laws we have in this country are by way of regulation and 20% by way of legislation. That 80% component has been completely ignored by Parliament for a very long time.

In fact, Parliament delegates authority to make regulations or statutory instruments to various crown corporations and various agencies and boards. Parliament was delegating that authority, but Parliament did not have the authority to review those regulations. They went without parliamentary scrutiny. I took the initiative and introduced a private member's bill that passed and became law, so that one hole is plugged. I did my part.

I would like to ask the hon. member a question about a fixed election date. I anticipate that for the way the government does spending, the way the government handles its budget, and the way the government handles its legislative agenda, all of them move around one axis, one famous point, that is, the election timing.

Does the member think that accountability would be restored to a great extent, that there would be transparency in the system, and that there would be some fairness in the system if there were a fixed election date, particularly with respect to spending, budget and legislative agenda?

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question, and yes, I do think it would make a little bit of difference, because we could be working on what we are here for, and that is to represent the people. We would not be wondering whether there is any use in presenting legislation, putting private members' bills on the order paper, or in doing any of the work that we are elected to do.

I find it very discouraging to come here not knowing from day to day if we are going to have an election this weekend, or whether I should do some work or investigating. I have some legislation that I personally want to look into and spend some time on, but will I have to just stop everything, put down my work and get back and campaign?

Right now in my own riding there are other parties out there just doing whatever they can to make sure that they are going to run a really rigorous campaign against me, and I have to work here, representing the people. Therefore, I think that a fixed election date would bring some accountability because I would be able to put my time, my resources, my energy and my focus on my work here, as I was elected to do.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to ask a question about this very important subject. One of the things that concerns me about the anomaly of a wandering date, which is what we currently have, is the impact it has on doing business in this country.

I know that the not for profit sector is required by law to turn in annual reports. I know that businesses always have an annual date for reporting to ensure that they have accountability.

My concern is that the government rolls out a series of programs and services that often affect the finances of the nation and also our prosperity. The government also introduces potential items that might be affected if there is or is not an election because those things may or may not be carried out post-election day.

I would like to ask for the hon. member's opinion about the fact that there is no fixed date and how that affects the ability of businesses to perform and to be effective, especially given the anomaly of a wandering date as opposed to having a specific date, which is what I support.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a valid concern, one of the difficulties I brought up earlier today.

For example, in January our returning officers started getting trained and were starting to book and to lease. Also, we have been going to different businesses, getting ready for the election. This puts all of these businesses in some sort of abeyance. They do not know what to do. It is either yes or no. Are we going to need them or should they just put everything on hold?

The last couple of weeks have been difficult, in that we are trying to decide from day to day. It reminds me of back when I would ask my two year old daughter if she wanted breakfast and she would say maybe yes and maybe no.

This is how this possible election campaign call has been for us, so let us imagine what it is like for the businesses we are dealing with and also for our returning officers in regard to their training. Will their training be up to date by the time the election is called if the Prime Minister decides to wait one more year?

This could all be set. It would be very accountable. It would be transparent. It would be affordable and acceptable and intelligent.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss in the House the motion for fixed elections. I do appreciate, too, that it is the desire of the opposition, in embracing a fixed election date, to stimulate a debate on what will make our Parliament more effective and responsive to the critical issues of our times. I think both sides of the House share that objective, and in fact a great deal of the discussion with respect to the democratic deficit has generated the kind of debate that we are involved in here.

I would suggest that there are some fallacies with respect to the motion put forward, and some false premises, I might add, that may not have been considered. I would like to put them out for the House to consider from my particular perspective.

First, may I say that the motion for fixed elections purports to introduce more democracy and accountability in the same manner as the motion for proportional representation. We remember that one being put forward.

The premise here is that fixed election dates would reinforce the concept of democracy, the ability for Parliament to remain vigilant and reactive in a dynamic way. If I may just digress for a moment, proportional representation was put forward in the same manner. I would suggest that if we look at proportional representation, we will see that it too was flawed in terms of the premise. I will attempt to trace that through to the fixed election date argument.

We heard that proportional representation would actually weaken traditional parliamentary institutions. Generally what would happen is that proportional representation would disaggregate public opinion. Instead of having a coming together of a consensus on a particular issue, we would probably have many more perspectives put forward. That would lead, in my opinion--and this was not part of the debate at the time--to the creation of special interest parties that would reflect special interest groups. Finally, that in fact would lead to the breaking down of the cohesiveness of Canadian society that in fact is reflected in the party system, through the party system, and is represented in the parliamentary tradition.

I would contend that this motion for fixed election dates, while it is well intended, is an attempt to replicate the presidential system without considering the impact on the parliamentary system. It is doing so by challenging under the rubric, let us say, of challenging executive authority as vested in the Prime Minister.

However, we should reflect for a moment on the differences between a presidential system and the parliamentary system, because if we think that south of the border the system is working so well with fixed election dates, we should keep a few things in mind. First, while there is a fixed term for the president, there are staggered terms of two years for the rest of congress. While they have a fixed election date, there are checks and balances within the presidential system in that the continuity and the responsiveness of congress provide for a dynamic institutional response to issues of the times with a balance of corporate memory in the congress.

While the president is in a fixed term, the congress is in an alternating mode. Therefore, the congress is in fact representing, to some extent, the response to the major economic questions of the time. There is a continuity of issues that have evolved through the term of that president and that congress. With a fixed term, after the term is up of the president, the whole congress and the president could be shifted out the door. There is that check and balance in terms of that responsiveness.

If we think of just that for a moment, if we wanted to achieve the same thing with fixed elections in the parliamentary tradition, would we then say that it would be very important that there be that corporate memory and that there be the stability that would come from the presence in the House of parliamentarians who would be elected on the issues and the vision of how to respond to our times? Would it not then be in keeping, with attempting to trace the comparison with the presidential system, to talk about a staggered term for members of Parliament? Think about that. Would this not be confusing for the electorate? Who do they want within the fixed term of Parliament? Who do they want to support? We would have some parliamentarians across the country who would be elected at different times.

It is important to remember that the prime minister, unlike the president of the United States, is the leader of the party that is in power. That is his or her rather limited executive authority. He or she as prime minister would not enjoy the opportunities for veto. The mechanism that the prime minister has to keep in mind is that he or she has to maintain the confidence of the House, not to the same extent the president obviously would in a presidential system.

I would contend that at any given time it would be difficult under a system with a fixed election date to replicate that kind of authority, the same dynamics and ability, to hold the government to account. If there were that kind of ongoing rotation within the Parliament to try and keep that kind of consistency, people would not really know who the government was. I think that there are problems there.

The other point I would make is about the checks and balances which we wish to maintain through the parliamentary system, rather than weakening the system and making it less responsive. I would contend that it is more responsive to have a term set out, but within that term there are mechanisms whereby the government could be called into account by Parliament for various reasons. Of course the one that we have as our tradition in the Westminster system, the convention, is the vote of non-confidence through the budget or through money allocations.

If we think of this in the changing context of our times, the nature of the issues that have been facing Parliament have made it absolutely necessary for the parliamentary institutions to be more vigilant because more information is in the hands of our pluralistic society, through our interest groups.

I need not refer at great length to the issue that is affecting this Parliament at this very time. It is sparking the whole issue of whether there be an election. It is the sponsorship issue and the challenging with respect to the stewardship of tax moneys.

I would like to rest the case not on those who are totally opposed to reform. I would like to make that clear. Through the action plan that has been outlined in the House, there are members on both sides who wish to see reform. However, I think it is wrong-headed to pursue it from the perspective of a fixed election date alone, as if that would be the grand panacea.

The facts would lead us to the conclusion that within the context of a term, with the nature of financial and taxation issues which are of great question to Canadians, the government has to be vigilant. The government has to put forward its agenda and be prepared to defend it. The stewardship of tax moneys has to be transparent.

In fact there was a time when the auditor general reported once a year, and that was it. There was this huge, voluminous report that was thrown down. There was no role with respect to the committees. There was no role in how to deal with the estimates to the extent that the oversight provisions of committee should be raised. Those issues were not the substance on the agenda of other parliaments.

Here we are talking about those very issues in a more non-partisan way. If we are absolutely determined, as we should be, to be the stewards of the public interest, financial, social, environmental and so on, the issue does not have as much to do with how long we are here. It is how we make the institutions of the parliamentary system work more effectively while we are here.

That is why it would be my humble opinion that the issues related to proportional representation, how we get there and the terms of a fixed election date, comparing perhaps the presidential system or even systems in developing countries or whatever, are really to deflect what the essential issue is, as has been put forward by the Prime Minister and by the opposition side. That is how we can be more effective as parliamentarians, through the institutions of government in the parliamentary system. We can focus primarily on the committee system and from that look at the relationship to the oversight structures, such as the secretariat of Treasury Board, Treasury Board, the office of the Comptroller General, the role of the Auditor General, the role of committees in terms of project and program review and how the system becomes more stimulated and accountable.

Those are the essential issues. I would suggest, as I have said before, that the issue is simply not one of arriving at a fixed date with respect to how long this Parliament will sit.

I put those forward as very quickly responses to the points raised by some of the members who have a sincere desire to make Parliament more accountable. However, a fixed date for elections I just do not think will cut it.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the discussion about fixed election dates. In Ontario it is not a foreign concept to have a fixed date. I have sincere reservations about the government's intentions on this. We have four levels of government in Ontario and two of them already have fixed election dates: the first related to school boards and trustees; and the second related to municipalities.

Municipalities have fixed election dates and that has been in operation for a number of years. We have to be very clear about what we are asking. We are not talking about changing the representation in Parliament and rotating people. We are talking about a specific fixed election date for the federal institution. If it is not good for this body here, then should municipalities move to a wandering date of three to five years?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I have had 25 years of working and serving at the municipal level. Right off the top of my head, I will try and give what I think is an accurate description of the municipal culture.

Municipal culture is close to the people. It is instant. Neighbours talk to their councillors at the supermarket about issues that affect them the most. They are issues on the street and issues related to their neighbourhoods. More and more they are larger issues with respect to transportation, sustainable development, growth strategies, availability of housing, homelessness and so on.

My contention would be that rather than a fixed date that is less, the fixed date should be longer.

There is no party system with respect to the local level of government. I tried to compare it to the presidential system in the U.S. Individuals come with their best intent. They lay out their value system with respect to what they think is best for their city or their township or whatever, and that is the basis upon which decisions are made.

I can only ask the member to compare that to the kind of issues that we deal with, the need for a consensus with respect to our party structure and the role of our committee system that deals with a bureaucracy that shadows and pales beside the bureaucracy that exists at local levels.

I would submit most humbly that this is like comparing apples and oranges. The public understands very well how their local government works. I do not think there is any need to attempt to apply the same fixed date culture concept there. That is far different from what we do in this place.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I remember when I was teaching, I would occasionally give students zero because they did not correctly answer the question that had been asked. For example, I may have asked them how long it would take to get from A to B and they would say the distance was 200 meters. That was the right answer for the distance, but it was not the right answer for the question I asked, so they received zero.

That member and almost all the Liberal members who spoke today have been giving arguments that do not address the question. They talk about everything other than the fact that we simply want to have a system whereby, at every regular interval, there will be a federal election, barring a vote of non-confidence which would change things. I have not heard from that member or any other Liberal member any single valid reason to vote against the motion today. They have talked about everything else.

That member talked about staggering and how that would confuse the electorate. I do not think so. People in the United States are not confused about staggered elections. That is not the issue today.

He talked about ad scam and accountability. It is ironic that one of the reasons we have this big uncertainty now about the election is because of ad scam. The government does not want to be accountable so it is contemplating putting the election off until the fall or even next year. That is opposite to the argument that member was making. He can respond if he wants.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it might surprise the member to know that I do wish to respond, not as a parliamentarian. It is more as a fellow teacher. I am used to having students in the classroom just like the member who asked the question. I know in pedagogical terms one attempts to draw the right answer out of students and a good teacher does that.

I would like to draw out a question from my colleague on that side. Would what is being proposed be better for the country? In our parliamentary tradition, would it inculcate in our citizens a sense that we would be more accountable with a fixed term of say five years, when some people might tell us that they would rather have us accountable throughout the five years, as we are now?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to follow up on the previous comments I made and the remarks back from the hon. member.

I hesitate to suggest it, but the party system is very much influenced in many municipalities. I know there are affiliations in my municipality. In Toronto, from where the member comes, there are strong affiliations with the party system. That does not really take away the value of whether the specific three to five year term should be applied.

I have a specific question. Why is it good for one system of government but not good for another? I find that hard to reconcile. There could be other municipal reforms. The fact of the matter is that Toronto has party affiliations with many of its members. Despite that, it still does not answer the question of why a fixed election date is okay for two levels of government, being the school boards and municipalities to have fixed election dates, whereas the provincial and federal governments, which we could change, do not?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to digress but since the member raised the matter of party, that there is a de facto sense of people belonging to parties, I would submit that any time a person in Toronto, although it may be the same in other jurisdictions, has stood on a party basis and run on a party program it has been with relatively little success. It is an indication to me that the people in Toronto at least still have more comfort with respect to their members, at least at local government and trustees in education and so on, being unfettered by party ideology.

The other question, in terms of it being good at the local level or, vice versa, being good for Parliament for a fixed term, why would we not do it, I thought I replied to that. There are a number of reasons but the one that is important is that the party system introduces a counter check on a Parliament of scale, a representation of scale. I would submit that at the local level it is that scale that people are comfortable with. I think they are comfortable with three years. I do not think they would be comfortable if that term were interrupted by a device that would have a recall quality to it as they do in California or other places. I also do not think they would be comfortable extending it beyond three years.

However, as far as this Parliament is concerned, the five year term and the nature of issues and the quality of Parliament, I think the general public is comfortable with that but we have to be on our toes. We have to be aware of the issues and we have to be aware that we can be called to account.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in responding to my questions the member asked me a question so now I can answer. The member often spoke about fixed elections, which is the last thing we want in this country. We are debating fixed date elections here today.

He wanted to know how we would be better off if we were to have fixed date elections. I could give the member many answers but because of limited time I will give him only one serious example. I believe we would have many more good candidates running for the various parties if they could plan ahead, plan their vacation time at the time of the next coming election so that they could use that time for campaigning instead of taking time off, which many people cannot afford to do. I was one of those cases. I had to borrow money in order to replace my salary when I took a leave of absence without pay to run for election.

That is only one reason of many. All he has to do tomorrow is to read Hansard and all of the excellent speeches from this side of the House that were in support of the motion today.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to rest my case. It is obvious from the presentation my colleague just made that he is equally as good a student as he is a teacher.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today 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 purposes 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.

The motion was then amended.

A fixed election date modification to the Canadian parliamentary system is a good step to take. It is simple to implement and has no high cost implications. It certainly would help everyone, including the private sector, to plan our national activities, and help bring respect to the process of Canadian governance. The present unseemly guessing game is unworthy of our great country.

For the third time in less than seven years, Canadians are facing the prospect of another federal election, just because the Prime Minister has mused about it. The Liberals say that the people are entitled to vote because the party has changed leaders. My Conservative Party of Canada, which recently elected our leader by a national democratic vote rather than by a process of insider takeover, Liberal style, prefers a vote in the fall for a more professional approach. My preferred date for voting is perhaps we could say the third Monday in June every four years.

We have been harsh in our criticisms of the prospect of an election less than four years into the Liberals' mandate as a cynical ploy to win another election. It is unacceptable for the Prime Minister to play with the country in this fashion for his personal advantage. This is not the kingly reign of his majesty Martin the first.

Voters rightly question why we continue to have a system that allows, what are clearly political considerations, to dictate the setting of the date of federal elections.

The Prime Minister may prefer a new mandate but under our system of government he does not need one. Canadians voted in November 2000 for a political party, not for a particular prime minister.

The Constitution requires that no House of Commons or legislature continue for longer than five years after the return of the writ from the previous election.

The Prime Minister may even genuinely believe that Canadians want an election, although this seems unlikely given that most people head to the polls with real enthusiasm only when they are on a mission to throw the bums out.

The only real push for an election comes from the Liberals who want an opportunity to continue their choke hold on government for another term. Now that the polls have changed, the whole business of the country in Liberal eyes may change, and this should not be so.

In the past, other government have seized on the same discretion on when to call an election to stay in power, long after they have worn out their welcome with the voters.

I say, enough. Certainly we can demand better and expect a higher standard of democracy for Canada.

There is no good reason why political parties should not be able to plan their affairs around a pre-determined calendar. The macro-economy would also benefit from the ability to plan around government budgets and fiscal predictability.

Over the past elections there has been a steady decline in the voter turnout in Canada. Setting a fixed election date would be a simple start to the important process of reforming our electoral system so more Canadians can feel there is a reason to vote.

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister's preference for the status quo is hardly surprising. Any incumbent leader would be loath to give up his right to call an election at a time that best suits the party. Any head of government would be reluctant to part with one of the longstanding perks of power, and we know the Liberals will do anything for power. Nevertheless, for the sake of the nation, a change would be a good thing to do.

If Canada were on a four year election cycle, the Prime Minister would not be dithering over whether to drop the writ this spring. His government would not be marking time, with no significant legislation before the House of Commons. His ministers would not be testing the political winds, recycling old spending announcements and making tentative, short term plans. MPs would not be making their tearful farewell speeches in the House.

He should not be parachuting candidates, like he plans in my riding, for that is an insult to party members and the democratic process.

It should have been clear when the Prime Minister was sworn in last December that he had a short set limit of months to govern before seeking a new mandate. He could have set his agenda accordingly and the nation could have developed a better mindset about the future vision for the country.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

The Liberals would still be on a pre-election footing of course. They would still be nervously watching the polls. They would still be struggling to extricate themselves from the ad scam scandal but they would also have the pressure to chalk up a few solid accomplishments before facing the voters and Canadians would have a better record upon which to judge.

Defenders of the British parliamentary tradition insist that flexible terms up to five years give a government the latitude it needs to cope with changing circumstances. It allows a government to consult the electorate at any time and it ensures that a government that loses the confidence of the legislature does not remain in power. However critics of the old Westminster model argue that it reduces public accountability by letting a government choose when to answer to the voters. It concentrates too much power in the hands of the Prime Minister. It bestows an unfair advantage to the governing party and it breeds national cynicism.

Until Reformers came to Parliament in strength in 1993, the traditionalists were unmoved. They could always count on prime ministers and premiers to follow election rules that worked in their favour. They could assume that the opposition would have trouble mustering sufficient interest in modernization.

However Reformers began to argue for improvements and it is now a change whose time has come. In British Columbia one of the first reforms brought in by Premier Gordon Campbell's government was the establishment of fixed provincial election dates every four years. To his credit, he willingly gave away the political advantage that comes with incumbency, the ability to manipulate the date of an election, in favour of the greater good of the people. The Prime Minister should do the same but he likely will not as he is inadequate.

The country must understand that it needs to elect a Conservative government to achieve this electoral improvement.

Dalton McGuinty may be next. The Ontario Liberal leader has promised to strip the premier of his divine right to set election dates. He said “It's time to put the silly guessing game behind us once and for all”.

Should our party become government, one of the first items of business would be to bring in a bill setting fixed election dates.

The NDP leader, Jack Layton, has publicly endorsed a private member's bill on the very same topic.

At first glance, the Prime Minister would seem to have little to gain by standardizing the election calendar, but it is just as possible that he dislikes playing the election date roulette as much as Canadians dislike watching it. It certainly seems that he has not been very good at it. He cannot seem to gather himself on this one, let alone if he ever had to make a decision on a more serious national crisis. This simple slam-dunk of an issue reveals just how inadequate he is for the job.

I also could surmise that the Liberal campaign team would be helped more than it would be hurt by a clear timetable. There would be no more costly false starts, no more guesswork and no more pressure to be ready at any moment. All parties could prepare in an orderly manner.

The Prime Minister would win some respect from voters for levelling the electoral playing field. If he is serious about narrowing Canada's democratic deficit, this is an easy first step to do it.

No politician in recent memory has been more full of the arcane game of picking election dates than Jean Chrétien. The former prime minister was wily and fiercely partisan. The nation does not fondly remember him for that particular point. The present Prime Minister is unlikely to beat his predecessor at that old style of politics but he could outclass him at fair play if he just could find himself and do the right thing.

Today he should announce that he would bring in more democracy to the House by perhaps just telling us that voting day will be June 21, 2004, and every four years thereafter on the third Monday in June, come what may. Canada would be forever better for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech with a lot in it.

What I have heard today is that the baseball season is on and three strikes have come my way. Strike one, that if we were to have a fixed election date we would have left democracy. Strike two, that it would need a constitutional change, which is nonsense. And strike three, that it would create a republic, which is also wrong.

My hon. colleague who just spoke did not miss anything. He hit a home run with every statement.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have advocated in the House some version of three strikes and you are out, but that is related to criminal offences. However, it is nice to know that someone thinks we hit a home run.

We must be very serious about looking at the academic literature. We must seriously consider an issue that is deceptively simple, yet has broad support and really is within the temper of the times, that a fixed election date within our Canadian Parliament is the right thing to do. We are very concerned about our economy and the rapid pace of the turnover of plans and the stock market. If anything, beyond the variances of this House, the stability that it could provide to the Canadian economy would be immeasurable. It would be a tremendous benefit.

We know that tax policy and policy around not having a deficit budget, what surpluses are and all the rules and regulations around corporate taxation are all related to the electoral cycle and the mandate of the government. The welfare of individual Canadians in their pocketbook is directly tied and can be seen as a ripple effect on having fixed election dates in our country.

There is a very real direct economic consideration for every Canadian. It is not just an academic exercise for the House to consider on its own. The economic consequences are tremendous. That is why among many other reasons, I am recommending and our party is fundamentally committed to imposing fixed election dates.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I also would like to commend my colleague on his speech. He hit on a number of very good points.

I would like him to consider commenting further on some of the criticism that we presumably have heard from the Liberals here today in their specious arguments against the motion. They talked about the fact that it would somehow diminish the right of either Parliament or the citizens if we had fixed election dates. The argument has been put forward along the lines that somehow they then would not have the right to vote when there was an issue before us. That is not the case now, because if there is a real issue of accountability before the people of Canada, if the Liberal government, the way it is right now, feels it cannot win the next election, it just will not call one.

In actual fact there is, in my view, less democracy because of the fact that the government cannot be held accountable when the issue is there. At least if there were fixed election dates, if there was an issue on the table at the time the election came around, the government would get hammered, as I expect it will be in any case in the next election, whether it is this spring, in the fall, or next year.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know the axiom that change begins with the recognition that a problem exists. The fundamental problem with the Liberal government is it is in denial. That is why it resists change and it resists modernization unless it is dragged there. That is why in concert we have heard all these specious arguments today.

Within our fixed election proposal, it is still possible for the Prime Minister and the government on their own initiative to consult the people and call an election because of a national controversy where perhaps they need a mandate, for example, to change the Constitution or deal with a separating province, and they are looking for a national resolve on a particular problem. The government on its own can decide to call an election on an issue, or the opposite, it may lose the confidence of the House and may be defeated.

That still would not interfere with our proposal for fixed election dates. The clock simply would be reset and by resolution of the House we could again come up with a predetermined date through consultation of the parties.

It is very important to provide continuity, sameness and predictability in this process. It is not just for parliamentarians to deal among themselves. The fundamental point that I have made is it sends a very strong signal to the economy upon which everything else runs.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to debate the motion. I do it on behalf of the people of Yellowhead and I make that reference to make sure the people understand that I do it on their behalf. That is because it goes right to the root problem of what is going on with the country and with the House with regard to how Parliament runs and how a nation that calls itself democratic actually looks after itself.

Before we get into debate on why we should have fixed election dates, I make reference to the very first line in the motion which says that there is a serious democratic deficit in Canada. That is true and I believe it is. It is the first thing I recognized when I walked into the House a little over three years ago as the representative for Yellowhead. That is when I recognized just how dysfunctional this place actually is and why it was that we just had an election where 40% of the electorate decided not to even worry about going to the polls. They just checked out of the electoral process.

When we understand the problem with the dynamics in this country and the slide of interest in the democratic process, we have to ask what is the problem. Why is that actually taking place? Over the last three years I have examined a number of reasons why I think that could be happening. I have examined it first hand in this place as I have diligently worked on committees where I have seen them decide one thing one week, then the minister cracked the whip and all of a sudden they do 180 degrees reversal on their position the next week. I have seen situations where we have a Senate that is appointed, that is not really reflecting sober second thought on pieces of legislation coming from the House. I have seen now, as we have examined what is going on at the present time with the sponsorship scandal, that without a fixed election date the electorate in Canada and members of Parliament from all sides of the House are being victimized because of not knowing exactly the date of an election call.

When we look at these three things, the easiest one to change would be the fixed election date. It is so simple and it would send such a strong message. An ordinary Canadian looking at the electoral process would say “Why would we not fix a time when we know exactly when we would go to the polls to elect our representatives again?”

I have listened very carefully to members of the House and I have yet to come up with a real good answer as to why anyone in this place would say no to that as a rational move in parliamentary reform. We have to understand that our Parliament is born from the British parliamentary system. There are all kinds of different models of that parliamentary form around the world. We can look at New Zealand, Australia and a number of others that came from the British parliamentary system and they have all evolved somewhat and they are all somewhat different. I would say Canada is a very young nation in the scope of things and we are at a pivotal time where perhaps the vote today could actually change the course of the history of our evolution of a democratic process.

It is very important we do that, because when we get into the free voting in the House we see the votes are absolutely whipped by the government. We have seen that time and time again over the last three years that I have been here. In fact the most recent one was the most embarrassing for the government when just last week almost the entire House voted against the cabinet. The Prime Minister whipped them, but he was not even here to vote himself and would not engage in it. A person should be here to vote on those issues.

Nonetheless, when we really listen to what the Prime Minister says and compare it with what he does, it tells us a lot about what will actually happen in the future. At the present time the Prime Minister talks a lot about the democratic deficit and how he really wants to change things so that it will engage the population of Canada and engage the House in true debate as we move forward into the 21st century. It is amazing to me when I hear all this rhetoric. I have to take him at his word. If he said it, that is what he wants to do. Yet when we look at the history over the last 10 years he has been the finance minister, he invoked closure or time allocation at least 13 times on his own legislation in the House.

We think, well okay, maybe he had no choice; maybe he was just part of cabinet and had no opportunity to change that. He certainly had that opportunity when he became Prime Minister. We thought when it came to time allocation and closure he would certainly change that, because that is what all the talk was about. However, the second week that he was in the House as the Prime Minister, he invoked closure on a piece of legislation.

Not only that, but he denied a free vote when it came to the firearms registry legislation. That piece of legislation certainly was not a money bill. It was a bill that dealt with firearms registration. It certainly should have had a free vote. It was a golden opportunity to send a new message to the people of Canada on how Parliament would run in the 21st century, and we were right back to the exact pattern of the last 10 years that we have seen from that individual.

What resonates in my mind is what the Prime Minister said in the Winnipeg Free Press back in November. I mention this in health care quite a bit because health care is my portfolio. What he said was that if we want to know what he is going to do in the future, just look at what he has done in the past. That does not say very much for health care and it says even less when it comes to democratic reform and dealing with the democratic deficit in this country.

It is unfortunate that we hear lots of rhetoric but we see very little performance when it comes to dealing with important issues. A perfect example is Senate reform and the idea of how the senators are actually put in place. They are appointed by the Prime Minister of the land. I do not believe that senators really should have a party position. The whole idea behind the Senate is that the senators be above the political process. Things can become a little chaotic in this place and with pieces of legislation there is the possibility of making some mistakes. True, sober second thought in the Senate would be an appropriate thing to do.

When it comes to how the senators are appointed, there are some vacancies for Alberta, my home province, where the people of Alberta went to the polls and actually elected two representatives to sit as their representatives in the Senate. However, the Prime Minister refuses to appoint these individuals as the representatives of the people of Alberta. I cannot imagine that anyone could talk about the democratic deficit without actually doing something to deal with this shortcoming.

When we look at today's debate which is on fixed election dates, we have to ask ourselves why that is not happening. I asked the question earlier of why anyone would say no to that.

There are other examples but I will use the example of Australia, which comes out of the British parliamentary system. Lots of things that Australia does in its British parliamentary system are quite a bit different from what we do. It is somewhat refreshing when we examine how they do it. A perfect example is that our percentage of voter turnout at the last election was a little over 60%, but in Australia it is somewhere around 95% to 98%. How does Australia achieve that? It does it by taxing individuals $25 if their names are not crossed off the electoral list. Therefore, the people vote. It does more than that. Election day is a stat holiday so that when the people go to the polls, everybody in the country takes that day off and celebrates the liberties and the democracy that they live under. They do not take it for granted.

Perhaps there is something we can learn by recognizing just how important it is to make this place functional, to make democracy truly reign. We must understand as members of Parliament that being a representative is all about serving and not about political opportunism. The motion before the House truly could move the yardstick a little further along and show that we are above the political process, that we have the best interests of Canadians in mind. If we are going to do that, we would have no hesitation whatsoever in making sure that we vote in favour of this motion to have fixed election dates. That would remove the whole idea of political opportunism in this area. It is very frustrating to me when I see that happen.

Some of the provinces have already started this. British Columbia now has fixed election dates. Ontario is talking about it and others may be looking at it. Why is that the case? Why should leadership on how democracy should be run in this country not start in this House? We should set the pace and lead. It should be the other way around. Instead of the provinces doing it, we should be setting the example in this House of how democracy should be run in a democratic country, especially in the 21st century as technology and information flows freely.

It is frustrating to me to hear the lack of arguments on the other side of the House with regard to this motion. I would encourage people from all sides of this House to really consider the opportunity before us today to vote for something that is in the best interests of the people they represent.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to what was said. One of the words that jumped out of the speech was “simplicity”, and I certainly got some insight into simplicity by listening to it.

I have a couple of questions. I have asked this question of others opposite and never received an answer. After 300 years of our constitutional system, of our system of selection of an election day, I would like to know when, on what day, did members opposite wake up and discover that somehow they could pick a section of it they did not like and say “let us outlaw, let us change it”? When did they discover that this process, which has existed for 300 years, was not to their liking, in their opinion?

Second, in Great Britain, whose system is most identical to ours, the percentage of those who vote is lower than it is here. Why is the simplistic proposal being put forward from our friends opposite not even on the radar screen there? It is not even being talked about in that country. Are they somehow not as intelligent, perhaps, or perhaps not as simplistic as some are here?

Finally, on the one hand, I heard my friend opposite talk about coercion, which he believes exists within the Prime Minister's Office, yet he would embrace a law that would coerce people to vote. How could he reconcile that Australian model where people are on force of a fine, on pain of a fine? That would be okay with him, but somehow he sees unfair practices out of the Prime Minister's Office toward members on this side.