Debates of Nov. 6th, 2006

Speaker's Ruling

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention something to my hon. colleague. I think that a third province has also passed legislation on fixed date elections. My colleague mentioned two provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, but I think that Newfoundland passed similar legislation. I am not very good at mathematics, but by my count, that makes three provinces. Maybe my hon. colleague should keep this question for a government member.

I think that the government has the power to legislate in these matters and, according to our internal research, no constitutional changes are necessary. The government has decided to act for certain reasons. We will see what actually comes of this. In principle, though, Parliament speaks through its motions and its votes on various bills. Bills can, by definition, be amended. If problems arise, things can be improved and changed. If improvements are necessary, the government of the day can decide to make them.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on one issue about terms of elections. One of my complaints, and it is a complaint of constituents, is that premiers and prime ministers in the past have timed the market. They have the flexibility to pick the date that is most convenient for the government side.

A case in point is what happened back in the early 1990s when the Peterson government was in power for a little more than two years. It decided to call a snap election because the polls indicated it had a landslide. Fortunately, the people of Ontario saw through the game he was playing, punished him and elected an NDP government led by a person by the name of Bob Rae, who brought much pain and suffering to Ontario.

One of the parties opposite sees that person as maybe the guy to salvage its operation, which is going down. It is loaded up with lead, the boat is sinking and members think that guy might be the captain to bring the boat back up.

My real point is it that it avoids the ability of the government in power to try to time the election. Does he not see a lot of merit in having something in place, which makes it fair to the opposition parties and all concerned, by having fixed election dates and avoiding this unsavoury side of parliamentary democracy?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the people who were listening to what my hon. colleague had to say probably noticed that the question he asked me was likely more just an excuse for pillorying the possible future leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Bob Rae. However, I am not a card carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada and have no intention of becoming one.

I can agree with my hon. colleague when he says that we would be taking away some of the Prime Minister’s ability to play little games. I come from Lac-Saint-Jean, and there people would say pull a fast one on the opposition. I can agree with my colleague on that.

The rules are the same now for everyone. For example, apart from the uncertainties of minority government, we know that there will be an election on October 18, 2009, if the government does not fall beforehand because of the realities of minority government. The rules of the game are clear to everyone, both the government and the opposition.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-16. As has been noted by my colleagues, this was part of the ethics package put forward by my predecessor Ed Broadbent before the last election. We embraced his ethics package in our election campaign because of the deep cynicism felt by citizens around the manipulation of election dates. Fixed date elections was part of Mr. Broadbent's ethics package.

Floor crossing was also included in his package. I for one will be glad to see the day when the government sees the wisdom of ensuring that we do not have another fiasco like we had just after the last election when a member crossed the floor and vaulted into cabinet, or for that matter, when someone vaulted into the Senate and then to cabinet.

All these things cumulatively deepen the cynicism of citizens in the democratic process.

Much has been said about the lack of participation of young people in the election process. I am happy to say that my riding had the third highest voter turnout in the whole country due in part to the number of young people who participated in the voting process. I fundamentally believe it was because they had a reason to vote. Hopefully, we have brought them in on the conversation so to speak. They wanted to see change. One of the reasons they participated in my election campaign was they wanted to see real democratic reform. They did not want floor crossing to continue. They did not want to see senators vaulted in one day and thrown into cabinet the next, which is fundamentally undemocratic.

The legislation is something we obviously embrace because it was taken from our platform. We are delighted to see the government acknowledge it. Hopefully, it will continue to rob our agenda on democratic reform because it is so fundamental. If our citizenry is cynical about the democratic franchise, then it is pretty obvious what will happen. There are examples all around the world where citizens have decided they do not have faith in their democratic institutions.

Worth of mention is what we attempted to do as a party. I sat on the committee and put forward amendments, but sadly they were not embraced. However, I think they are worthy of mentioning today.

One important amendment, which was acknowledged by the government, was the fact that this legislation would not change the Constitution. I noted in committee that we accepted the fact. It was a pragmatic approach and there was nothing wrong with it. The Constitution is a reference point for all Canadians and it certainly should be a reference point for Parliament. We cannot always do the end run around the Constitution. At some point we have to acknowledge that the Constitution is there for a purpose. It sets out the rules of engagement for our democracy.

We accepted the pragmatism of the bill and its importance. We agreed that we did not want to open up the Constitution. I put forward an amendment that would have clearly set out what would happen with respect to issues of confidence. It stated:

If the House of Commons adopts a motion of non-confidence in the government and the Prime Minister does not resign despite the adoption of that motion, the Prime Minister shall advise the Governor General to dissolve the House of Commons on the day the motion is adopted and to command that a general election be held on a Monday selected by the Prime Minister that is not later than 180 days following the day on which the motion is adopted.

The reason I put that forward was we had discussed flexible fixed date elections in debate in the House and in committee. Why? Because in times of minority Parliaments if confidence in the government is lost, then it will fall and an election will ensue. I thought it very important for Canadians to see that in the bill. This is why I proposed the amendment. Sadly, it was not seen as being in order. I simply want to put that on the record as something we had prescribed, not to undermine the bill but to strengthen it. The other suggestions we made were minor, but we felt they would strengthen the bill as well.

The New Democratic Party took the bill seriously. We put forward amendments, as did our colleagues from the Bloc, to ensure that it would be the best it could be. For that, we need to understand the nature of the bill is and what we can do with it.

The bill will not change the other facets of the democratic deficit. I have already talked about floor crossing as the major gaping wound in terms of the rules of engagement in this place. I know my colleagues in Manitoba are putting forward an anti-floor crossing bill. We look forward to them embracing democracy there. We wish this place would as well.

We need to do so much more. In the last Parliament, a committee on government rules took a look at what could be done to strengthen our democracy by way of going to the people of Canada. In fact, if I may read from the committee, it recommended:

That the government launch a process of democratic and electoral reform to begin no later than October 1, 2005 and to be completed by February 28, 2006; and

That the process involve a special committee of the House of Commons, and a citizens’ consultation group;

That was agreed to by every party within the House of Commons in the last House.

What happened to this? Sadly, like many things that are important, particularly around democratic reform, it was put off to the side by the previous government. It was not embraced. We got excuses about hiring facilitators, et cetera. I might point out that it did not take the previous government long to put together the Gomery inquiry and it found consultants within a minute to fulfill the complement of resources needed for that.

For the consultation of citizens on democratic reform, the excuse was that the government did not have time. That is not good enough. What the House has to do, and it is incumbent to build from the fixed date elections, is to ensure that we go back to what Parliament agreed to do, through its committee structure, and start a process to go beyond just the fixed date elections. That, after all, is only the beginning. We need to have a committee of the House work on the concerns people have around democratic reform, look at other models and ensure it is congruent with where people are at and do this by way of citizenry consultation.

Canadians can look for more on that from the NDP. This party has not lost sight of the fact that Bill C-16 is not the end of ensuring we have real democracy in our country. In fact, it is the beginning.

If we were to look back to a place in history that is similar to where we are right now, we might find ourselves looking at the whole notion of responsible government and the situation of what was occurring in the 1840s, following the rebellions in 1837. We would find that the focus of the country at that time was how to reform our institutions to bring in real responsible government. I believe we are at a similar point in our history.

People have lost confidence in government institutions. They have lost confidence in the way we elect members of Parliament. They have lost confidence in some of the players, and we saw that in the most recent history. It is incumbent, as it was in the 1840s, to restore the confidence in our democratic institutions.

Quite frankly, we have to do what LaFontaine and Baldwin did at the time. That is not to throw away good ideas, but to embrace them. The only way that will happen is if we go to the Canadian people, through a citizens consultation, and use this place in the best way we can, by having a committee to come up with smart, sensible, democratic reforms. If we do not do that, we will be in a similar situation as we were in the 1840s, save for the fact that people stood up, proposed and made sensible changes to the structures of the democracy at the time.

We know the outcome of the rebellions of 1837 into responsible government in the 1840s was the beginnings of what we see today and eventually Confederation. If that had not happened in the 1840s, and many historians concur, we would not have had Confederation. We need to strengthen responsible government. We need to do that by going to the Canadian people by way of a consultation and by way of this place having a committee.

Why is that necessary? I want to confirm that there is a problem in our democracy simply by looking at the turnout from the last election, not in the numbers of people but the distribution of proportionality of the vote.

If we look to the last election, the governing party received 36% of the vote; however, it received 40% of the seats. That is actually not so bad compared to the election before when we look at the government of the day, the Liberal Party, receiving 36% of the vote and 43% of the seats. There is a problem here. It is a fundamental structural problem. It is about proportionality.

We have a model presented by the Law Commission not too long ago that showed that there is a way to embrace both first past the post and proportionality. Canadians are not satisfied when their votes do not count. We know that fixed date elections are simply one point. It is about what Canadians do when they get to the ballot box. They have to know that their vote will count and that is what we have to fundamentally change.

In summary, the New Democratic Party supports the bill because in essence it is our policy and we are glad that the government took it. We want to see real democratic reform and building on this democratic reform, we want an engagement with citizens to ensure that all of us have confidence in this place and the democratic structures of our country.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be totally dismissive of the NDP's position about floor crossing, but I want to point out a few facts.

Probably one of the greatest leaders of any time was Sir Winston Churchill and he crossed the floor I believe at least two times. We would be a lot worse off if we had not had Sir Winston Churchill and his impact on history.

I want to turn to Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan Party was formed in the late nineties with eight MLAs. Four members from the Conservative side and four from the Liberal side left their parties to create the Saskatchewan Party. It was my point at that stage that the people in the constituencies would decide that issue and in 1999 they overwhelmingly put these eight MLAs back in office with large majorities.

However, lo and behold the Romanow government, which barely won that election, brought in three Liberals. There was Mr. Melenchuk, who became the finance minister, another fellow who became the speaker of the House and one other member. He needed the Liberals to maintain the balance of power. In the next provincial election after that, and Mr. Romanow was leader of the NDP government, all three of these Liberals were trashed at the polls. They lost their seats.

The voters in my opinion are the ultimate judge of these matters. They did not seem to think it was a big deal with the Saskatchewan Party. They give it a big endorsement. However, they gave Sir Winston Churchill obviously a big endorsement in British history. Obviously, in the NDP case in Saskatchewan, they were rather ticked off because they threw all three of these people out.

It is up to the voters in the final analysis. That would be my comment. If the member wants to react to it, that is fine.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member's comment, we need to look at examples in history to give us some guidance in terms of how to improve things.

I hope the member is not arguing that if there had been floor crossing legislation at the time of Sir Winston Churchill that we would not have had Sir Winston Churchill. He was elected based on the merits of his leadership, clearly.

However, let us be clear about what we are talking about. We are talking about ensuring that the citizens, who we are here to serve, have confidence in their government. Let us be honest, their confidence wanes when they see parties wooing people over, crossing the floor simply for the purpose of vaulting them into cabinet and for reasons of power.

That is what this is about. We have to stop that. If we can improve that and make the rules clearer, we will all be better off. What we have seen most recently with the previous Liberal government and the floor crossing, and certainly with this government, is that it undermines the confidence and deepens the cynicism of citizens.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa Centre continuously touched upon cynicism and citizens losing confidence. I agree with that. However, we have to get to the source.

I want to ask him if he would consider doing one thing. I read the member's literature, living here in Ottawa sometimes, that he sends around. I think we cause that. Would he consider, in his literature, being more transparent and less cynical because we are turning off the constituents.?

For example, in the last election, it is no wonder there was a lot of cynicism and people did not show up because your party reneged on commitments.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I think the member means “his” party.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member has taken my literature seriously. If he read it, he would note that there were simply propositions and there was no negative campaigning, certainly. It was good information, such as what we are going to do to clean up the environment and what we have done to propose ideas to clean up the sorry mess we had in ethics in politics.

Simply put, if the member wants to change the rules of this place to ensure that accountability is bar none, then moving things from the Senate over to this place would be a start and, second, looking at real democratic reform because it has been sadly lacking not only in terms of floor crossing, as I mentioned, but also in changing the democratic system and structure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like a clarification from the opposite side with respect to proportional representation. I do respect the opinion that, in the member's view, it would lead to better governance in our federal institution.

However, I wonder if he would elaborate briefly on whether he thinks that might lead to the creation of many different political parties and whether that, in turn, rather than bringing better governance, and we have great respect for our party system of course, would lead to less consensus and a machinery of government that would not bring people together, thus making them feel that they were not able to influence the direction of government through the institutions that presently exist. The plethora of political parties gives me some concern. I think it would give this House some concern

I wonder if the member would apply himself to elaborating a bit on that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is more to come on this issue because this is something we have taken on as important change in our democracy. Simply put, what we could do, and what has been suggested by the Law Commission and other jurisdictions, is have a threshold before a party is recognized.

I might add that we are not talking about having full-blown proportional representation on this side as a model. We would look at having two-thirds of the members according to first past the post, in other words the way it is now, and one-third according to a proportional list. When we had elections like in 2000 where 40% of the vote was given to the government of the day, yet it received 60% of the seats, we would change that. Clearly, no one wants that. That is not proportional. When a party like ours receives two million votes and the party across the way receives one million votes, but the other party receives twice as many seats, that is clearly not democratic.

We are saying that we need to change that. There are ways of doing it and certainly making sure that we do not have the kind of pizza Parliament, as it has been called, as a model that no one wants. The way we would do that is to have a threshold, 5% perhaps, before a party is recognized with seats proportionally. In fact, it has been done in every other jurisdiction save Canada. It has been done in New Zealand, the United States, Great Britain and Scotland. We are clearly behind the times. It is time to look at it seriously and to move forward on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today to join the debate on Bill C-16.

I wish to indicate at the outset of my remarks that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, the parliamentary secretary to the hon. government House leader.

I have had the privilege of serving as the chief government whip in Parliament and the honour, as well, of serving on the procedure and House affairs committee which was the committee to which Bill C-16 was sent for further deliberation following second reading in the chamber.

I was pleased with the work that the procedure and House affairs committee did on this piece of legislation. I commend members from all four of the political parties, not just from the government side but from the three opposition parties, which dealt quite expeditiously with the legislation and I think quite thoroughly. They looked at it, called witnesses, and debated it at some length, as my colleague from the New Democratic Party just alluded to. Amendments were brought forward that provoked further debate and some great comments, I felt, from colleagues from all four parties as we worked through this piece of legislation.

Indeed, it exemplified the way Parliament should work. There was a need identified on the part of the government, but as colleagues from other parties have said, not just on the part of the government. It is something that many people have worked on over the years and have highlighted that there should be further change to our democratic process and institutions.

It reminds me, if I needed any reminding, that I started out in this political business as a Reform Party of Canada member of Parliament. Really, when I was first attracted to the Reform Party back in the late eighties, I was attracted on three big platform issues. I was a farmer at that time raising three young children. I was trying to look forward to what life would be for my children. My children are now all in their mid-twenties. I was concerned then as I am today, as are many Canadians, about what kind of world and what kind of country we will be leaving the next generation.

I focused in on three issues. The first was the need for fiscal reform because I was concerned about the debt load that we would be passing to future generations. That is one of the reasons I am very proud of the steps that the government has taken already in the recent announcement of reducing our national debt by some $13.2 billion. That money was assigned out of the surplus to better enable our country to tackle the issue of our national debt and to ensure as much as possible that we do not see this intergenerational transfer of wealth that could result in reduced services and reduced opportunities for the next generation. Any parent, and indeed any grandparent, is concerned about that type of thing.

The second issue, moving on from fiscal reform for which I was attracted to public life, was the need for judicial reform. Here again, I am very encouraged by steps that the justice minister and the new Conservative government have taken. We have brought in 11 bills already thus far in this Parliament since it got under way in April. I am very proud of that fact. Even if they do not all pass, it has prompted further debate about the need to restore not only justice but the perception that justice is done in our country and that criminals will be held accountable for their actions.

As I travel throughout the beautiful riding of Prince George—Peace River and indeed across Canada, I hear this all the time from Canadians from all walks of life. They are very concerned with what they perceive to be an inherent injustice in our judicial system.

It is important to try to do what we can as parliamentarians to restore that faith in the justice system and, to give one example, in the fact that the most violent and most vicious of criminals will be held accountable and will serve their proper time in jail, not under house arrest.

The third area of interest for me is democratic reform. Here we come to the bill that we are debating. As part and parcel of the need for democratic reform--and the member from the New Democratic Party has just put forward thoughts about proportional representation--we have already taken some steps in this regard. We have legislation in the other place that deals with limiting Senate tenure, because Canadians have expressed concern that under the present system senators are appointed sometimes early in life and serve until the age of 75. Canadians feel that perhaps should be changed, so we brought forward legislation to deal with it.

We also have a bill before the House which I hope we will be debating later this week, Bill C-31. Again, it is on something that was raised at the procedure and House affairs committee by colleagues in all parties. There seems to be a general consensus that something further needs to be done with our electoral system to ensure that, as much as possible, voter fraud is eliminated. I noticed while watching television last night that there is concern about the voter fraud issue in the election that will be taking place tomorrow in the United States. As much as possible, we want to improve our system to ensure that it best serves the needs of Canadians.

On Bill C-16, certainly it has been indicated that we do have general agreement among the parties on wanting to eliminate the potential for abuse, either by prime ministers or, in the case of provincial legislation, which we already have in some provinces, by premiers, by having fixed dates for elections. We all need to be very careful when we refer to this that we do not talk about fixed elections. During the last debate in the House, a few people misspoke. We in the government are certainly not interested in fixing elections, but we are very much interested in fixing the dates of elections.

Already during the debate, we have heard about the fact that if the government were to be sustained until then and in actual fact did not lose the confidence of this place, under our electoral system the next election would not take place until Monday, October 19, 2009. I think that type of clarity is very welcome. I know it is welcomed by the constituents I represent, the people of Prince George—Peace River.

Why do I say that? Because British Columbia does have fixed election dates. It was the first province to do so, in 2001. Indeed, like other countries around the world, it was very quick to see the value in having a fixed election date that brought clarity and certainty to all political parties. It levels the playing field for all participants and indeed for all voters, because it is known well in advance when that election will take place.

In 2001, British Columbia brought this forward and we had our first fixed election date on May 17, 2005. A lot has been said about the possibility that if we have fixed election dates, they somehow will produce lame duck governments, but that has not been the experience, not only in British Columbia but also in other jurisdictions and countries around the world. That has not been the case. I think a strong argument can be made that, with this type of certainty, governments, whether they are majority or minority, will keep governing and working right up to the day of the election. Indeed, far from being a lame duck government, it will be a very effective government and will work in the best interests of its people.

I am almost out of time, but I will note the other argument we have heard, which is that by having a fixed election date the legislative agenda of the government somehow will be held hostage, or that somehow the government could fall suddenly, especially in a minority government situation. That is true, certainly in a minority government situation. We recognize that.

There has been some criticism that under our system the premier of British Columbia and the Prime Minister of the country still will have the power to call an election. That is true, because we have to build that into the system, especially in the present situation because of the minority government. Indeed, it might come about that the government could fall, but I do not think, and I made this point in the last debate, that a prime minister would dare call an election before that date unless he had a very good reason for it. He would be held accountable by the people, because their expectation, through the legislation itself, would be that the date was off into the future.

I of course welcome any comments or questions from my colleagues on this important piece of legislation.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested to hear the speaker's comments about why he became a member of Parliament and what attracted him to the Reform Party, which were the questions of democratic reform and fiscal constraint.

I wonder how he now views the floor crossing of the Minister of International Trade prior to Parliament even having opened, or the appointment of an unelected senator, which is contrary to the Conservatives' beliefs, as the minister who is responsible for one of the largest spending departments of government but who is not able to come into the House to answer questions. His parliamentary secretary is in the House, but he is not a privy councillor and does not have access to the information. How does that square with the member?

He talked about the deficit reduction of $13.5 billion. I thank him for it because the deficit reduction was done by the Liberal Party and the $13.5 billion was from last year's financial exercise, which is completely the responsibility of the Liberals.

On the question of ethics and accountability to Canadians, I ask him how he squares the question of promising not to touch income trusts and then reversing that decision, encouraging Canadians to invest more in income trusts. I do not question the decision, but I question the promise.

Finally, I would ask him if his party would be willing to forgo deciding which bill is a matter of confidence and which is not, leaving only the budget implementation bill and the Speech from the Throne as matters of confidence, and let the House decide what is a matter of confidence.

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

Mr. Speaker, could you indicate to me how much time I have?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Probably not as much as you would like.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

That is very true, Mr. Speaker. It is probably not as much as I would like, but with all due respect I welcome the comments of my colleague from the Liberal Party, who rattled off about five questions, any one of which I could spend considerable time trying to address adequately. He talked about floor crossing, the appointment of Senator Fortier, the issue of the Minister of International Trade, income trusts, and confidence motions. I do not know which of those I can pick to try to address in a few minutes, but let us deal for a moment with the issue of confidence, because it pertains to the bill we are discussing today.

During earlier debate on Bill C-16 when it was before the House, we spoke quite extensively about this whole issue, because an interest was expressed by members of the Liberal Party and others that under this bill we should somehow restrict what would or would not result in confidence and thus could result in the minority government falling, in the minority government losing the confidence of this chamber and the Prime Minister being required under our system to go to the Governor General and request that an election be held.

At that time, I pointed out that in addition to the traditional or historical confidence motions dealing with the budget, as the member mentioned, or motions dealing with money matters, whether it is the supplementary estimates procedure in the House, the budget itself or the business of supply, the view is that if the government loses those particular votes, that does, by extension, express a non-confidence in the government and the government falls. I will grant that right at the outset.

In addition, though, I raised the issue that from time to time there are very important issues that come up, and to my knowledge the Prime Minister has indicated only one other issue thus far in this Parliament that would be a confidence measure, and that is the softwood lumber agreement. I think that is appropriate, because that particular agreement is so inherent to the economic well-being of the nation that individual members of Parliament should be required to state very clearly how they are going to represent their constituents on that issue. If the government cannot carry the day on an issue of such importance, then indeed we should go to the people and let them decide how important that is.

There are always going to be special issues, whether it is to extend our mission to Afghanistan or whether is international defence treaties or those types of issues, special issues that we believe will constitute confidence in the government, and we must carry those votes if we are going to stay in office.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all hon. members for what I am sure will be their rapt attention over the next 10 minutes. I look forward to their comments and questions at the end of my presentation.

Let me say a couple of things at the outset about why I believe this is a very good bill, not that government bills are not good when they are presented in this House, frankly, but I think that some are better than others in their formulation. I say that because, as we know, this bill came back from committee without amendment.

Let me just dwell on that for a few moments and, for those Canadians who may be watching this debate, try to explain the distinction to them and why this is a very important distinction. Many bills referred to committee are amended significantly at the committee level. In fact, we have seen an example of that in this House with some of our justice bills. The committee has gutted them almost beyond recognition, to the detriment, in my opinion, of the bills themselves, before sending them back to this place for further discussion and further debate. That is not the case with Bill C-16.

Bill C-16 was a wonderfully crafted bill when it was sent to committee following second reading. In fact, that was exemplified by the fact that after extensive discussion in committee, the bill was referred back to the House without amendment. We are now discussing it and debating it. It will pass, I am sure, after third reading, but again, this speaks to the fact that when this bill was first crafted, when the government decided to bring this bill forward in one of our first attempts at democratic reform for all Canadians, it was a shining example of the type of attitude that this government has when it comes to democratic reform, because it was a bill that required no amendment.

Yes, there was a lengthy discussion and there was a lengthy analysis of the bill, but at the end of the day, the bill in its entirety, without exception, without amendment, was sent back to this place for the approval of all members of this place. Why is that? What makes this bill so strong that it could withstand the scrutiny of all members of the committee, who represent all political parties in this place? Quite frankly, it is so strong because it deals with four very specific issues.

It deals with fairness. It talks about the need for no political party to have an undue advantage when setting the date for the next election. That is extremely important, because time and time again in this place we have seen examples of it by various political parties, and we have seen examples throughout Canada at the provincial level by various political parties, examples where the party of the day had the ability to call an election to fit its own political purposes and, I would suggest, abused that ability.

In this place on more than one occasion we have seen the governing party of the day call a federal election in the middle of, or shortly thereafter, a leadership race of a competing political party. In my opinion, not only is that politically amoral, but it really fuels this level of cynicism about the entire democratic process, of which other members in this place have spoken.

What I believe all Canadians want to see in the conduct of all their parliamentarians is a set of rules and a set of procedures that are inherently fair and balanced. I believe that this bill, by setting a fixed date for every federal election, has that inherent fairness, whereby no political party that happens to be in power would have an undue advantage in the ability to call an election when the polls seem to be prime for that particular party.

This, above all other attributes of this bill, will set a level of fairness that I think all Canadians not only will appreciate but have demanded for oh so many years. It is this fairness that will bring some degree of predictability to when elections are held. I think that is extremely important. When we were discussing this bill at the committee level, we brought in many expert witnesses who talked to this very fact, that in setting a date every of four years for an election, predictability not only helps the government of the day but improves things like voter turnout.

Quite frankly, the longer we are into this process of fixed dates for elections on the third Monday in October of each fourth calendar year, we will find that the voter turnout will increase. People will become more used to the date for the election. If we asked people south of the border, the average citizen of the United States of America would be able to tell us when the presidential elections are held and when mid-term elections are held, because they are set into a routine and they know when election day occurs. That will be the case here in Canada once we are into this process a few elections down the road. Canadians will understand that every fourth year on the third Monday in October there will be a federal election. That will absolutely help in terms of voter turnout.

One of the great tragedies of Canadian politics is that over the course of the last decade or two, we have seen voter turnout steadily decrease. I think we can attribute a number of factors to that decrease. Cynicism certainly is part of it, but if we get into a routine and Canadians know when they will be going to the polls, they will start looking forward to an election. I suggest that they will take more time to examine the issues and pay closer attention to the level of scrutiny that all politicians from time to time seem to abuse. Ultimately I think Canadians in increasing numbers will get out to vote.

In the last two or three federal elections we have seen voter turnout down as low as 62% to 64%. More alarming than that, we have seen a disproportionate number of young voters refusing to exercise their franchise. This bill will be the first step in reversing that trend.

Although some colleagues had opposite views, one of the things the bill will do is it will actually improve the level of governance in this party.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It needs it. It needs it.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear my colleagues opposite agree with that statement. Right now we have a minority government situation and one never knows when the government may fall; one never knows how long this government will last.

In particular, if the bureaucrats, those wonderful dedicated men and women who work for the government, completely understand the timelines in which they have to do their jobs, that can do nothing but improve the governance of this place on behalf of all Canadians. One of the problems we have seen too many times before in a precarious situation politically is that many civil servants are afraid to go out on a limb and make suggestions to their ministers because they are not sure how they will be received politically. I do not think Canadians want that situation to happen.

We have to have confidence not only in the government of the day but also in the civil servants who actually produce with parliamentarians the level of government that all Canadians expect.

I will conclude by saying--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. Statements by members.

Remembrance Day

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this coming Saturday is November 11, when Canada will once again honour those who have died fighting for our country.

The parliamentary democracy we enjoy today has evolved over the last 100 years. However, that evolution has only been possible because at critical times in our history, men and women of courage have been willing to stand up for freedom and have been willing to fight and die for it. The Newfoundlanders who died at Beaumont-Hamel were all volunteers, free people all.

The same can be said for those Canadian troops who have paid the supreme sacrifice during the current UN mission in Afghanistan. These courageous men and women have left home and family to travel to a foreign land, fighting in an effort to provide a peaceful way of life for a country living in turmoil.

On November 11 we honour them all. “At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we shall remember them”.

Canadian Forces

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, this is an appropriate day and week to talk about the tremendous job our armed forces are doing for Canadians. They are serving us with honour and pride under very serious conditions in many theatres around the world.

I and other members of the House of Commons defence committee recently visited CFB Petawawa to meet the personnel who are responsible for training most of our present contingent of soldiers serving in Afghanistan, ably led by Colonel Denis Thompson, Commander, 2 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group. We met with Base Commander Lieutenant-Colonel David Rundle. We met with some of the returned wounded. We met with spouses of our soldiers presently serving in Afghanistan. We met with doctors and caregivers, padres, nurses and counsellors who help with the readjustment required on the soldiers' return.

What we found was a highly professional, dedicated and uncomplaining group of Canadians training for a life and death struggle with the forces of the Taliban. They are putting their lives on the line for us and for the Afghan people and they are doing so with inferior infrastructure and training facilities and understaffed rehabilitation personnel.

There are--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. The hon. member for Montcalm.

Agriculture

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec agriculture is going through tough times and grain producers are the hardest hit at present. Grain prices are now artificially low because of American subsidies and, currently, the cost of growing grain for our farmers is higher than the price paid for their crops.

The federal program established to assist farmers is not working and the all too real losses continue to accumulate. This is a serious threat to agriculture because these problems are in addition to those often posed by the climate and the cost of transportation.

Canadian agriculture is being subsidized less and less. Amounts of subsidies per capita are lower than in the United States, the European Union and Japan. If no one takes action, if this government refuses to provide adequate support to grain producers, many farms will disappear, particularly in outlying regions.