Madam Speaker, if I understood correctly, I have approximately eight minutes. So, I will do my best to summarize what I have to say.
First, I question somewhat the premise of today's motion by the opposition party that, in the opinion of this House, there is a serious democratic deficit, particularly in the domination of the executive over the House of Commons.
I think this is an affirmation that can still be contested. There is a fundamental concept underlying our parliamentary system, which is that the government is accountable to the House. To govern, the government must have the confidence of the House. It is a responsible government. At school, I was taught that this is what the word means. Our government is in fact responsible. This means that it answers to the House: it must at all times have the confidence of the House in order to continue to govern.
This motion proposes taking away the House's confidence. So I fear that one of the initial consequences would be contrary to what the opposition is trying to do, and give even more power to the executive, which would be even less accountable to the House, since there would be fixed election dates.
In fact, if I understood correctly, the motion recognizes that the government could be defeated, for example, on a budgetary motion, and this could lead to an election being called. In my opinion, limiting the confidence of the House and accountability to the House is contrary to good faith and good governance.
A government must answer to the House on much more than just the budget. There are fundamental issues of principle, for example, that could be questions of confidence. There is this entire issue of confidence and the way the public has confidence in the government through its members.
We must tread very carefully. For example, if we head toward fixed election dates, this would mean, in my view, “presidentializing” our system, if I can use that word. At that point, we would have to consider the other consequences, because by presidentializing our Parliament, perhaps other measures would need to be adopted, including ones that, I am convinced, the opposition would not want passed.
In presidential systems, for example, the government, that is the president and his ministers, does not come before the assembly daily to account for its actions. Oral Question Period is something we have here in Canada, which requires a government to be accountable to the elected representatives of the people for its actions every day the House is in session. This is something we value a great deal.
If we were to “presidentialize”, to move toward another system, would this practice be at risk? I do not think this is something we should do. Difficult as question period may be sometimes for a government, it is essential to have such a tool in place so that the opposition can indeed obtain accountability from the government. We therefore need to proceed very cautiously.
I have heard what certain colleagues have been saying about committee work possibly being affected by the lack of a set date. It is true that some committees may be hampered, but the opposite is also true. I have been noticing recently, because of the possibility of a spring election, that some committees have worked faster, and have finished their deliberations more quickly and more energetically than they would have otherwise. They felt there was the likelihood of an election. If, on the other hand, they had known that the election was on a fixed date, there might not have been that sudden interest in finishing up. In certain cases, this tenfold increase in the energy level of certain committees has resulted in some very positive outcomes.
There are always two sides to everything, and some would say three: yours, mine, and the truth. If we are to head toward a set date for elections, I think broad consultation is needed first. In fact, the very system under which a government operates cannot be called into question with a motion such as this one, with a single day's debate, without broad public consultations.
To me it is a very simple matter; I will certainly vote against this motion for the reasons I have given, and for others as well.
It has been stated that our proceedings might be less partisan if there were fixed election dates.
Based on the information I have about systems with fixed election dates, I hold the opposite opinion. Their deliberations are fraught with constant partisanship; immediately after an election they already know the date of the next and they begin taking positions with a view to their campaign strategy, rather than accomplishing less partisan work for at least a year or two, as is the case in our parliaments.
It is clear that, in the first year and a half or two years of most mandates we have seen in majority governments, this period is inevitably less partisan. The opposite is not necessarily true of systems with fixed election dates.
We really must keep things in perspective. Instead of making a statement without truly knowing the consequences or all the facets of the issue, and there are several, we must be very prudent. If people want to study them, let them go ahead. That is perfectly legitimate. It is our duty as parliamentarians to be open, to examine the suggestions that are made to us, to use the necessary resources and time to examine them seriously and completely, which is not what is happening today.
At that point, perhaps, we should think of doing this in a somewhat more serious way than today. This idea definitely has some merit in the eyes of the public, but to do it today, by ourselves, without any consultation, is in direct opposition to what the author of the motion has proposed, and to what the Leader of the Official Opposition was calling for in his bill.
That said, I could probably find other arguments; for example, that the ability to call an election whenever it wants to gives the government an undue advantage. That is not quite true: there are risks. If elections are called too early or too late, there is a public outcry. As in all things, it is a question of balance, good will and transparency.
If we had fixed election dates and a government wanted to call an election anyway, it could arrange some clever trick to lose a vote. Instead of playing such tricks, I would prefer that we live with the situation we actually know, as it exists in our parliamentary system. It is an approach that has certainly served our country very well so far.
