Debates of Sept. 19th, 2006

Canada Elections Act

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the urgency and the desire for the member opposite to increase the amount of democratic reform that this place needs. I suggest that one step at a time is the way to go. To put all these things into one omnibus bill would surely result in greater opposition than what we experience when we bring in legislation one at a time. I encourage her and her party to stand behind this initiative and help it pass.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see the government talking about making our democratic process work better to serve the interests of all Canadians. However, there are many commonsense practices that exist now, outside of these legislative changes, that would also further that goal. One of them is to hold true consultation processes.

Recently the government supposedly held a consultation process on post-secondary education. The closing date happened to be the date when students returned to university. It was held during the summer and it failed to advise many of the stakeholders of this consultation process.

Would the government commit to a real consultation process rather than the kind of sham that was held this summer on post-secondary education?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but note that the member has no real questions with respect to the legislation. She has moved on to other topics of reform that perhaps the House should consider, but I would like to address Bill C-16, the one focused on fixed election dates, and simply highlight some of the other benefits that I did not get a chance to address in my speech.

In summary, there are four clear benefits from the legislation.

It provides fairness. No longer will the governing party be allowed to manipulate the process.

It provides transparency and predictability. Canadians will benefit from knowing exactly when these fixed elections will occur so they can plan their lives and the businesses around it.

It improves governance by removing power from the prime minister's office and devolving it to the people, as it should be.

Hopefully, it will result in a higher voter turnout. The date in October was chosen particularly to avoid conflicts with municipal elections and religious holidays, such that the voter turnout should be higher if we adopt this legislation.

I encourage all members in this chamber to support Bill C-16.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, saying it does not make it so.

I support the principle of fixed election dates, however the hon. member has said that snap election dates are out and that a government cannot manipulate the process. There is absolutely nothing in the legislation that prevents the government or any future government from manipulating the process. It does not define what votes of confidence are.

Later today we are going to have a vote on the softwood lumber deal. The government, which just the other day and over the summer, said that if in the vote did not go its way, it would be a vote of confidence, the government would fall and we would have an election. At the same time it has Bill C-16 before the House. To me, that is inconsistent and indeed almost hypocritical to suggest on the one hand that we are bringing in fixed election dates, but still not dealing with the process.

How does the legislation prevent the government from manipulating election dates when in fact it is silent on it?

Unless there is an amendment, which clearly defines what votes of confidence would be, we will be subject to future manipulation by the government. I suggest that the real target is to tell the public to feel good, that we will have a fixed election date in four years, when the reality is get ready, we will have one either later this year or early next.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member did not listen closely to what I had to say. He quotes me as saying that I said snap election dates were out. That is not the case.

This morning the member repeated that question time and time again. He has received his answers, yet he does not seem to be satisfied with the answers he gets from the government. Perhaps he could pose a new question, one that is a bit more novel than the one he has asked.

Let me assure him that the proposed legislation can only go so far without reforming the Constitution. We have moved as far as we could to bring in the stability that this place requires and that Canadians expect.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-16.

I chose to run for political office, as many here did, to make a difference. I believe we were sent here by our constituents to improve the state of the nation.

One of the areas where our nation definitely needs improvement is the structure and the function of our democracy. Before the last election, our party put forward a seven point plan to clean up and improve the state of our democracy. A friend of mine and a colleague of many who are here, Mr. Broadbent, proposed the seven point plan to clean up and put in the hands of Canadians some ideas that we could then bring to this place to improve the state of our nation and, indeed, the state and health of our democracy.

I want to go over those points. We know that with the accountability act the government quite smartly and rightly took some of our ideas and brought them forward. We certainly contributed to the committee on Bill C-2 in which the member for Winnipeg Centre and I proposed, as opposed to just opposing, ideas. We proposed some of the ideas that we had put forward in our plan, which was available to Canadians not only during the election but before the election.

To summarize the seven point plan, the first was to have democratic accountability in the House. We proposed that no member of Parliament could ignore his or her voters and wheel and deal for personal gain. No member of Parliament should be permitted to ignore the wishes of their voters and change parties. This was before the interesting musical chairs by the member for Vancouver Kingsway. We wanted to ensure that the wishes of voters were honoured. To cross the floor and become a member of another party, without first resigning his or her seat and running in a byelection, was not on.

Democracy is something that is evolving. It is an experiment of sorts and it is something where we know that when voters are not honoured, they do one of two things. Fist, they just walk away from the process, and no one wants to see that happen. Sadly, we have seen that happen over time. Second, they propose to change things.

The first thing we wanted to do in our seven point ethics packages was to ban floor-crossing. We saw that it dishonoured the wishes of voters.

The second point of our seven point plan was that election dates should be fixed, which is the spirit in the proposition the government has put before the House in Bill C-16. There are many reasons for that, which I will explain in a minute.

Point three, which we proposed before the last election, was to set spending limits in leadership contests. We saw in the previous Liberal Party leadership contest the contestant, who then became the prime minister, had over $12 million in the bank. Obviously, there was not much competition in the end, but he had lots of money. We had concerns at the time about the amount of money in leadership contests, and it was not just with the Liberal Party. Parties are largely financed by the public and the same principles pertinent to the public good should play to the internal affairs of parties as they do to electoral competition between parties.

Point four was electoral reform. This has been a demand, a suggestion, a proposition that was made probably before I was born. An organization of Canadians from coast to coast has been brought together from all parties. It has decided to focus on electoral reform, which obviously needs fixing.

Many people have suggested we look to the other healthy democracies that have proportional representation, that the will and the spirit of the voters is represented in legislative bodies. This clearly has not happened in the last number of elections. We need a process and we need to ensure that we get on with that process.

Fair Vote Canada, the organization to which I referred, has been tireless in advocating for fair elections so voters are not cheated, which has happened. It is not about parties. We know we have had majority governments that are false majorities, governments that are based on 38% and 39% of the vote. That is clearly wrong, it is undemocratic and it should be changed.

Point five was that unregulated lobbying and political cronyism must end. We have started on that path with some amendments we made on Bill C-2. We have to change government appointments so they are not patronage appointments. We have made some changes, but there is work to be done.

Point seven was access to information. Clearly, that is the window on democracy. It is a bit clouded now. We are working on that and there is more to come.

Now let me turn to the bill before us. The reason why we put forward fixed election dates long before others were talking about it in this place was because we saw the concerns that people had with the executive power, which has been concentrated over time, in the hands of the Prime Minister's Office. Some put it back to just after Pearson. We saw this lead to the deepening of cynicism among the voters of Canada. We had a previous government call a snap election when it was clear that the opposition at the time was not coalesced or organized. Why? Because it could win the election.

As was mentioned, governments sometimes go on too long. We remember the previous Conservative government, which waited until 1993 to finally let Canadians have their say. We could see a government call a snap election to get power or a government that hangs on to long. We see the benefit of having fixed election dates, but there are many other reasons, if we look to the people who have studied it.

I refer to Henry Milner, who is an author, visiting scholar and professor of political science at Laval University. He has studied this, and I consider this an objective opinion. He is one of the people we tapped into taking a look at fixed election dates. He showed that Canada is only 1 out of 12 of 40 comparable democracies that does not use some form of fixed election dates. Clearly, when we look at the juxtaposition between our democracy and others, it is worth examining, and he did that. He also said that these numbers contradicted the widely held misperception that flexible election dates were incompatible with parliamentary systems, as some have suggested.

I will turn to concerns with the fact that there have not been constitutional changes proposed in the bill. In effect, a prime minister can walk down the street and still call for an election. My colleague has made a proposal. In committee we will look at proposing ways to ensure that there are criteria on what is a confidence vote.

Most parliamentary democracies in Scandinavia and continental Europe, including several Westminster style systems, have what is called a flexible fix. In other words people would have concerns if there were a loss of confidence and the government should fall and set criteria accordingly. That is really what we are talking about: not fixed election dates, but nuance. It is a flexible fix so if there is a minority Parliament and the government loses the confidence of the House, there is an opportunity to go to the people, and that will not change. Therefore, we have fixed election dates when it is opportune.

Like many others, I am concerned that the present government is simply trying to engineer, between policy and brokerage politics, the fall of the House so it can then gain a majority. I actually think that with this debate and this bill in front of us people will become wise to that kind of backroom politicking. Not only with fixed election dates would we avoid the cynical use of power within the Prime Minister's Office, as we saw with previous governments, but the public would be aware of a fixed election date in October and would then question the government if it were orchestrating the fall of the House. The government would need to make that political argument. Is it playing brokerage politics simply to have the House fall so that it could gain a majority government? I see that as an important debate to have.

By adopting a precise date, preferably early in the fall as has been suggested, it would allow a campaign to take place at the end of the traditional vacation period in Canada. We also must take rural Canada into account. If we were to have an election too early in the fall it would affect farmers. Farmers, goodness knows, have had enough challenges and they do not need another one in front of them.

Although many of us had a terrific time going door to door in the last election and found it very invigorating ploughing through the snow, many of us, and probably most Canadians, would rather that be a footnote in history and not a practice to embrace.

If we were to build in provisions for holding early elections when necessary and in such an event stipulate that the following election would occur on the designated date four calendar years later, I believe Canadians would embrace that and it would help fix democracy.

I want to conclude by emphasizing the fact that this is something the NDP proposed before the election and it is something we embrace. We have some concerns but they can be dealt with in committee. We fully support fixed election dates.

I would like to leave the House and Canadians with the fact that this is not the end of electoral reform and democratic reform. Canadians are demanding that we fix our democracy, that we embrace the idea of democratic reform and that we embrace the idea of proportional representation. Canadians would then have genuine confidence in democracy. This is the beginning, definitely not the end. I look forward to engaging in debate with my colleagues.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to our colleague, and I found that he raised some excellent and very interesting points about democratizing the decision-making process, which in his view is currently dominated by the cynical use of power on the part of the party in power or the Prime Minister.

We know that during elections, the parliamentary process is blocked. It affects our ridings too. Plenty of things get put on the back burner. I find it has a huge impact on what we are trying to do for our constituents.

I think that when the election date is unknown, we often drop certain issues the moment the election is called so we can prepare for the campaign. Then we campaign for two or two and a half months before we can get back to work. Then another three or four months go by before the government ministers are ready to deal with their portfolios.

In reality, average citizens looking on and paying our salaries can expect to wait seven to nine months before their issues are addressed.

I would like to know what our NDP colleague thinks about this. Does he think that fixed election dates would have an impact on the service we provide to our constituents?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as an aside, perhaps we all knew when elections were coming before because the money would start flying like no tomorrow from various ministers. They would be shoveling it out the train or plane depending on where they lived and we would know an election was coming.

We saw in this town and across the country that things came to a standstill around the time there was a perception of an election coming and files were not moved. In this past election, because it was a fairly long period, things were not getting done and, as a result, service to Canadians was affected negatively.

I personally believe that fixed election dates, particularly when it would occur just after summer vacations and when business is done throughout the land, people could begin ratcheting up their campaigns before the actual election date, which is common.

However, I do not think the business of the country will come to a standstill. People will understand and accept that an election is happening and that the government will no longer be able to manipulate it and, if it does, it will be in what I will call the public square. Everyone will be saying that we are throwing more money at something or we are going to stranglehold the bureaucracy by not allowing it to do anything because there is an election coming.

I personally think what should happen is what has happened in other jurisdictions that have brought in fixed election dates. It will make government more effective, more comprehensive and will, hopefully, avoid what we have seen in the past, which is the manipulation by the Prime Minister's Office, the executive branch or the bureaucracy simply for its own pursuit of power.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in theory, fixed election dates are very good. However, Bill C-16 has not taken into consideration what constitutes confidence. If we look at the general history we know that confidence motions are on the Speech from the Throne or a finance bill. Within the current environment, the Prime Minister, whenever it does not suit him, calls everything confidence. How does the bill help in ensuring the Prime Minister will not use that power and not create more cynicism among voters to call a snap election?

The bill is also a mishmash with the U.S. congressional model. Could you give me your thoughts on how we could improve on accountability?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I would remind members, as I did yesterday, to address their remarks to each other through the Chair and not use the second person but the third person.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my comments, something we can look at in committee is the setting of some criteria as to what is a confidence vote. However, with this legislation and this concept of fixed election dates, as we see this with the present government, this will take the rug out from under it, the strategy of trying to orchestrate a non-confidence vote simply to get a majority, as we have seen with previous governments.

In other words, if the bill were to pass and we do have fixed election dates, Canadians will question why the government would try to play brokerage politics, playing one region off the other simply to have a government fall and then gain a majority.

We all know, let us be honest that is the elephant in the room, that the government is simply looking for a way to orchestrate the fall of Parliament, particularly while one party is going through a leadership process. It may be a strategy it learned from another political party, I do not know, but that will be known to Canadians who will ask why the government is orchestrating the fall of Parliament when we have a fixed election date two or three years hence.

There are two criteria. One is that we can look at making amendments and set criteria for confidence, if that is possible. The second is that Canadians are smart and they will see when they are being manipulated. If there is a fixed election date and we have a government that is cynically trying to cause the fall of Parliament simply to get a majority, it will pay the price.

If we take a look at that in combination with the fact that this is the beginning and not the end of electoral reform, this is something we should embrace. We can see how we can make it better in committee and that is why my party will be supporting it.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP supports the idea of fixed election dates. It was part of our seven point platform on accountability, which was to bring true electoral change and reform to Parliament.

The member talked about many points but the one I want to focus on is proportional representation. A previous opposition member spoke about a referendum that was held in British Columbia where 59% of the population supported proportional representation in some form. My caucus and members of my party through their good work have supported that. We know that in the general public there is an appetite to see true electoral reform.

Would my colleague go into somewhat more of the merits of proportional representation and inform the House of some of the things that can be achieved with true proportional representation and true electoral reform?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer my colleague's excellent question, I should answer the second point raised by my previous colleague about this being a kind of an American style reform.

I simply suggest that the member take a look at the reference in my speech to the work that has been done by Professor Milner. He takes a look at the fact that it is not only the United States but that many other jurisdictions have successfully embraced fixed election dates, fixed but flexible. The American system does not have that flexibility. We would have the flexibility and it honours the Westminster tradition.

As to my colleague's question on proportional representation, we need to honour the voters of this country with a system that is fair. What we do not have presently is a fair system. It was referenced earlier that we have a system that was created back in the 18th century and obviously needs reform. We have seen reform in every other jurisdiction. Every other mature democracy, save two, have embraced some form of proportional representation. Why? It is because it is more democratic.

I would suggest to the House and to Canadians that this is not something that needs to be studied. We need to go to Canadians and have a citizens assembly, as has been done in other jurisdictions. We must provide these citizens with some of these ideas and hear from them what they think makes sense.

We proposed that process, by the way, as something we were going to follow in the last Parliament. Sadly, the government abandoned that commitment. I would like to see that embraced in this Parliament and discussed with Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, from the outset, as the House leader of the Bloc Québécoisand the deputy leader said yesterday, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill in principle. However, we do have some comments.

This bill is like many bills that seek to improve how the federal system works. They sometimes add to our difficulties as sovereignist members in this place. Many of our constituents tell us when we meet with them that we are not here to improve the federal system.

I want to tell my fellow Quebeckers that the Bloc Québécois remains a resolutely sovereignist party. Until Quebeckers say yes to themselves, Quebec will work within a British parliamentary system. Incidentally, the same is true in the Quebec National Assembly. The British parliamentary system that is in force here means that sovereignist members represent Quebec, and until we achieve sovereignty, if improvements can be made to the way the parliamentary system works, we will make them. I wanted to make that clear so that the Bloc Québécois is not accused of improving how the system works and turning its back on sovereignty as an option.

With this bill on fixed election dates, Canada will join the ranks of countries that have adopted the same principle, countries with a clear democratic tradition such as Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg and the United States. In Canada, three provinces have passed legislation providing for fixed election dates: British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Ontario.

In Quebec, this is nothing new. For decades, it has been customary to hold elections on fixed dates for what I would call lower levels of government. I cannot think of any other term for this, but I am referring to different levels of government, such as the municipal level. I want to be careful what I say, especially since we have in our ranks the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, the former president of the Union des municipalités du Québec. I would not want him to accuse me of implying that municipal elected officials are lower or inferior in any way, during the upcoming period of questions and comments.

Fortunately I have just had a stroke of genius and found with a synonym. I am talking about the municipal level as a different and very important level of government. I should know since, before being elected here, I was municipal councillor for Boischatel, in Côte-de-Beaupré where I live. I still live in Boischatel and I am a proud Boischatelois. I can tell you that working in a municipal government is not a prerequisite for working in the federal government or at the Quebec legislature. It is nonetheless an asset and I am proud of the years I spent at the municipal level.

In Quebec we already have fixed-date elections at the municipal level every four years. In the past two or three years, the Government of Quebec has harmonized these elections because there were still some municipalities that held their elections on different dates. Now in Quebec, municipal elections are held the first Sunday in November every four years. My memory fails me but I believe that our school boards in Quebec also have fixed-date elections.

This has been going on for decades, as I was saying. This has not hindered the accountability of the elected representatives or democracy in general.

We believe that the main advantage of this bill will be eliminating the prerogative of the party in power—I will go a bit further—the prerogative of the Prime Minister.

When Jean Chrétien was the Liberal leader and Prime Minister he used to say that it was his wife Aline who chose the election dates. This was done very privately. Mr. Chrétien, a dramatic man, told us the story somewhat like this: he would get up in the morning and be shaving in front of the bathroom mirror when suddenly Aline would appear and tell him not to arrange any more appointments, to go see the Governor General and ask that an election be called. It went a little something like that.

Apparently the prerogative of the party in power is a rather secretive decision.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Spousal.

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

My colleague from Hochelaga is suggesting that it is a spousal decision. Nonetheless, it is a rather secretive decision and is more or less the Prime Minister's prerogative.

The leader of the government, the leader of the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister, probably remembers how former Prime Minister Chrétien legally exercised his prerogative and took advantage of whatever situation certain opposition parties were in.

I would remind the House of the facts. On March 15, 1997, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was elected leader of the Bloc Québécois. An election was held two and a half months later, on June 2, 1997, called by former Prime Minister Chrétien.

He repeated the same strategy in 2000. On July 8, 2000, the current Minister of Public Safety was elected leader of the Canadian Alliance, one of the many names of a party that changed names frequently, in search of its identity.

I recall from my law practice that requesting a name change is relatively easy and lucrative. That party often changed names. At that time, however, it was the Canadian Alliance. The current Minister of Public Safety was chosen to lead the party on July 8, 2000. Five months later, Prime Minister Chrétien called an election for November 27, 2000.

The leader of the Conservative Party, who is the current Prime Minister, was elected leader on March 20, 2004. The former Prime Minister, whose name I cannot mention since he is still the member for LaSalle—Émard for a few more weeks, called an election to be held on June 28, 2004, three months after the election of the Conservative Party leader. It was an opportunity for barely legal tricks aimed at furthering a possible division or realignment within a party that had just chosen a new leader.

We feel that this did not serve democracy, which is why we like the fact that this bill removes the for the party in power's prerogative to call an election whenever it would be most politically advantageous for that party.

An election will now be a sure thing, exactly as it is in the United States. If you would like to try a little exercise, ask any grade 6 class on what date the American election of 2092 will be held. They need only look at a calendar. Everyone knows that the election is held every four years. This removes the possibility of playing games or engaging in political manipulation.

This principle places all the parties on a more equal footing. The party in power no longer has an organizational advantage because only they know when the elections will take place. All parties democratically represented in the House, and even registered parties without parliamentarians, would be playing by the same rules. I believe there are 21 registered parties in Canada.

We also believe that this bill would make it easier for more people to participate in the electoral process, whether as supporters, election workers or even voters. The issue of motivation and advertising by the Chief Electoral Officer could create a certain buzz among voters, with the goal of increasing voter participation.

Over the past 20 years there has been a decline in voter turnout in Canada. I believe there was a slight increase of a few tenths of a point during the 2006 elections even though they were held on January 23. The strong trend over the past 20 years has been a decline in voter turnout. This is worrisome.

Our fellow citizens can be grouped into certain categories. There are citizens who have lost interest in public affairs and who no longer vote. Unfortunately, when we have gone door-to-door and regardless of whether or not an election campaign is underway—Bloc Québécois members have a reputation for being visible not just during election campaigns and, as the whip, I receive my colleagues' schedules and I can confirm that the 50 Bloc Québécois members are known to have a strong presence in their community—our fellow citizens have told us over the years that they will no longer vote. They feel it is useless and that it makes no difference if the government is Liberal or Conservative. They will no longer vote.

This is worrisome in a democracy. We must find ways of increasing voter turnout.

The result of having fixed election dates would be to enhance the effectiveness of the work done by parliamentarians, since committees would then have an opportunity to plan their work schedules better. Certainly some parliamentary work is done in this House of Commons, but we must also not forget the work done by the standing committees, the equivalent of parliamentary committees, sometimes called commissions, in Quebec. Here, they are standing committees. We have 26 of those committees, and they do fantastic work and deal with a huge work load, whether by approving bills on second reading or in the special studies they do. Unfortunately, people too often see only the work that is done here in the House.

Sometimes we have visitors. People sit in the galleries and are surprised to see that there are not more members in the House. What I tell them then, and I take this opportunity to tell the people who are watching us on television, is that you must not base your impressions solely on the number of people physically sitting here. If my memory serves me, there are 16 or 17 committees meeting on a Tuesday. Our members of Parliament, who are not blessed with the ability to be in two places at once, cannot be in the House and at a committee meeting. That does not mean that members are not working, even if they are not physically present in the House. Too often, people consider only the work done in the House of Commons.

If committees knew that elections would be held on fixed dates, they could organize their work accordingly and could avoid initiating an extensive study, knowing that elections would take place in seven months, and that it would demand a lot of work. Conversely, they could start work earlier on an extensive study, knowing that elections would take place in a year and a half or two years.

Another consequence of this bill is that when the time did come, the public would be in a better position to evaluate the track record of the party in power, the party chosen in the election campaign to form the government.

We would be in a position to use better judgment when exercising the right to vote. As well, knowing it would soon have to face the dangers of the polls, a government would be more inclined to make tough decisions, decisions that might be unpopular but that are necessary. A government could decide to go ahead, and, because there were fixed election dates, tell itself that the public would be able to judge its actions.

In addition, the opposition's approach to its work would change. Knowing that the government had a fixed term, the opposition would opt for different approaches and would contribute positively to the bills before the House. One of the roles of the opposition is to be the critic of the government.

The Bloc Québécois has taken on the responsibility of not acting simply as a critic for the joy of criticizing or the joy of saying that what the government is bringing in makes no sense. When we think that the government is bringing in things that that make no sense, we say so. However, when we think that the government is bringing in things that are serious or reasonable, that could be improved, we voice constructive criticism.

In my view, the softwood lumber agreement on which we are going to vote at 3:15 this afternoon is a good example. The Bloc Québécois still believes that a billion dollars are missing from the American trust fund. We consulted with working people in the regions. The leader of the Bloc Québécois and our critics for industry and international trade toured exhaustively in the regions. We consulted people in the pulp and paper industry. They tell us that this is not necessarily a good agreement but they want us to ratify it anyway.

From a purely partisan standpoint, we could vote against the agreement because it was signed by a Conservative international trade minister, who used to be a Liberal minister—but that is another story. But after consulting, we decided that we would support it. We are therefore providing constructive criticism, and this is why the Bloc Québécois still wants an assistance plan. In any case, though, that is not the purpose of my speech and questions could be raised about the relevance of what I am saying.

This principle would also make it easier for Elections Canada, the parties, and the candidates to plan for election campaigns and ultimately might well improve them and possibly reduce their cost. That is a major point.

I am currently vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, just testified before this committee. When we do our election post-mortems and ask all our caucus colleagues to tell us about problems with the implementation of the Elections Act, Mr. Kingsley or one of the members of his team always shows up with a notebook. They certainly do listen because after I speak in the House, I sometimes receive e-mails or telephone calls from them. They do not always agree, or they provide further clarification.

At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we are occasionally critical, and quite rightly so, of the Chief Electoral Officer and the Elections Canada team. Sometimes, however, in view of the short deadlines involved, we must bear in mind that the Chief Electoral Officer could have difficulty getting his election preparations quite right. I would think he would like fixed election dates because he would always know where he stood since he would be aware of the exact date of the next election, for example in 2009.

I have been signalled that I have only a minute left and will finish up as follows: in general, this bill will help to fix some contradictory situations that currently arise. We in the Bloc Québécois support the basic principle. If the bill passes and works well, who will be the ultimate winner? I think it will be democracy and also the respect that citizens have—citizens who decide through their vote who will represent them in the House of Commons.

The Bloc Québécois legitimately represents its constituents. Everyone in this House, regardless of whether or not they like the individual who was elected, must respect democracy and the persons chosen in a democratic election by the people of Quebec and Canada.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentions that he spent 12 years in municipal politics. He knows that the difference between fixed election dates in the municipal world and under this legislation is that the mayor, for example, cannot at his discretion decide to dissolve the council and call an election. If it is a fixed election date, it is a fixed election date both in terms of principle and in reality. Under this legislation, we would have a fixed election date, but still have the ability of government to have discretionary power to call an election any time it sees fit.

Would the member or his party be prepared to look at specific amendments to reduce that discretionary power, for example, only on money matters, money bills or the Speech from the Throne? A government could come along and say it promised 15 things in the last election and has deemed each and every one of those 15 as confidence matters. Therefore, notwithstanding that we have a fixed election date four years or three years from now, it is going to deem this a confidence matter and if it loses of course it would go to an election.

What type of amendments would the member's party be prepared to look at to deal with this issue which at the moment seems to be the great flaw in Bill C-16?

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

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, who was President of the Union des municipalités du Québec, but I forgot to mention my Liberal colleague for Toronto Centre, who is a former President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I hope I did not commit a serious faux pas by forgetting to point out his presence, but I am sure that other Liberal members took care of that during the debate.

The member highlighted something that the Bloc Québécois has been giving a lot of thought to. I am not prepared to announce an amendment at this stage today. Let us remember that we are only talking about adopting the principle underlying the bill, and that it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, where we will study it thoroughly. However, the flaw that my Liberal colleague just pointed out is obvious. I am sure the issue would be resolved if there is an amendment, but if there is no amendment, we know that holding elections at fixed intervals would put additional pressure on any government that might try to ignore this.

We have to give this some thought. When the time comes, we will have the opportunity to state our position on any amendment put forward by my colleague or members of his party or even by members of my party. Nevertheless, I would reiterate that we want constructive opposition and that this bill, like most bills introduced in the House, has some room for improvement.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the issues that are raised by this bill and the direction it is going fundamentally speak to the nature of the political system we work in. This political system has been characterized in the last while by minority governments, by a call by people for proportional representation.

The bill purports to set out a timeframe which really is not binding on the Governor General or the government of the time, but really we are all elected to govern here and the bill needs to be taken in that context. There is room for amendment here, to look at how we can ensure that the will of the people, expressed through their elected representatives, has an opportunity to work within a fixed timeframe.

Would the member opposite look at amendments that could ensure that others in the House, in a fixed period, would have the opportunity to form government in the case of a confidence vote in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, the minority government situation changes things a bit.

Even in a majority government, if enough government members are absent, the government could lose the confidence of the House. It could happen, but it is unlikely. The problem remains, and we will have to pay particular attention to it. I think we still have time to come back with constructive ideas before the bill is passed.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I also appreciate his support for common sense legislation that Canadian taxpayers willingly support for the benefit of all Canadians.

This includes Canadians living in the lovely province of Quebec.

I also appreciated his clarification of his party's raison d'être and I would ask him this simple question. Given that he supports what the government and this Parliament are doing in this regard, would he take that word back to his constituents and his party's constituents in Quebec, that this Parliament and government are working in the area of democratic reform to the benefit of Quebeckers and all other Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member should avoid dreaming in technicolor and come back down to earth. The member needs to keep his feet on the ground.

I should say something about weekends and the parliamentary recess. It must be said, and I do so as a non-partisan comment, that on Monday members of all parties did not return from a vacation that began June 22. We were not on vacation. We spent some time with our families because we are human beings and we do need a little rest. However, we continued to work in our respective ridings.

Fixed-date elections are not something that preoccupies the voters of Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord on a daily basis. This summer, the people were talking about the government’s position on the war in Afghanistan, about their hopes that the Kyoto protocol would be respected and the Prime Minister’s position on the bombardment of south Lebanon and about many other subjects such as the higher price of gasoline. Those are the subjects that the voters are concerned about.

I do not need to say how good this Conservative government is in wanting to improve the democratic process by means of fixed-date elections. The government needs rather to be concerned with settling the most pressing problems. I believe it needs to increase its credibility because this summer the government’s credibility was at its lowest point.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. As many members have already stated, a degree of cynicism has made its way into our Canadian democratic system. If I understand correctly, the purpose of this bill is to restore the confidence of Canadians and Quebeckers. However, I believe that Canadians are concerned about a party that is pledged to break up our Canadian federal parliamentary system. I put this question to the member: how does the Bloc propose to restore the confidence of those Quebeckers who see their future in a strong Quebec, but within Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe my NDP colleague could have benefited from walking around the streets of our ridings and talking with some ordinary people during the NDP convention two weeks ago. She should have gone out of the Concorde hotel, the Quebec convention centre and the Hilton hotel.

There is a very strong desire in Quebec to manage our own affairs. We are saying that sovereignty will not be a vote against the people of British Columbia. We are going to say “Yes” to ourselves. According to the polls, between 48% and 52% of the population shares that view. What more can I say? The desire to manage your own affairs is not against anyone else; it is for yourself. It is exactly like a young couple that decides to live together. Do they ask permission from the butcher, the grocer or anyone else? They do not even ask permission of their parents. A young man may tell his mother that he loves her. She does his laundry and cleans his room, but he has decided to spread his wings and leave the nest. That is what freedom is.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my honourable and active colleague from the Yukon.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-16, legislation that seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act to bring in fixed election dates at the federal level in Canada. The bill provides, subject to an early dissolution of Parliament, that a general election must be held every four years.

The issue of fixed elections is embraced by many people as a way of addressing some of the perceived cynicism in our political system. Rightly or wrongly, people do believe that what happens here in Ottawa is often out of sync with ordinary Canadians. I think we could all think of circumstances. I will vote for the legislation at second reading so the committee can deliberate and make any changes, particularly as it relates to the issue of confidence and confidence votes.

I was not always a fan of fixed elections. In fact, I can recall when I was the president of the Liberal Party in Nova Scotia, my good friend and former leader, Danny Graham, upon becoming leader, proposed sweeping changes on how the government and the House of Assembly operated. He had a large number of democratic reforms about which he was very passionate, including fixed elections.

As party president at the time, I thought there were more important issues to be addressed and I was not at all enthralled with this idea but, as is usually the case when I look back on it, Danny was right. I have come to believe that fixed elections do have useful elements and are worthy of support. I think they are generally good for government. I think they are generally good for the public service. I think they are generally good for the media who have to cover and portray campaigns at their cost. And I think they are generally good for Canadians.

One of the primary arguments for fixed elections is to remove the unfair advantage that the government has in setting the election date. Does this take politics out of the election dates? I do not think it takes all of the politics out of election dates. It does mean that the government cannot determine in a majority situation that it will have an election early or even go for five years if it wishes. It does determine that the date will be held at a certain point in time, but it certainly will not take the politics out of fixing an election date, nor will it shorten election campaigns. In fact, looking south, I suspect that it will make election campaigns much longer. People are already preparing for the 2008 presidential elections and for senatorial elections two or even three years down the road as well.

However, this fixed election date will mean that a prime minister would no longer have the opportunity to call an election when it is thought to be to her or his advantage. In Nova Scotia, we had a case in the 1980s. Premier and then Senator Buchanan was elected in 1978. He called an election in 1981 and another one in 1984. It was similar to what we had at the federal level through the 1990s.

Fixed elections might also level the playing field for all participants by providing certainty for candidates who are seeking to become members of Parliament. I think that is important.

I recall that when I was seeking election, there were a lot of decisions to be made. There is a lot of planning with one's family and with one's business if one happens to be a business person. There is an awful lot of work that has to be done around identifying when one is going to make the announcement.

In the case of people who may be in business, or partners in business, a position similar to my own, can one in fact be a nominated candidate for a year or perhaps even two years not knowing when the election might be? I think that is worthwhile considering.

We all know the risk involved in running for office. We set aside our lives to run in the hopes of winning. Many who have jobs without protection must, in a relatively short period of time, make significant changes in their lives to run for office, so I think fixed elections will allow individuals the opportunity to plan effectively to run for public office.

Those are positive elements and, as I say, I look forward to supporting the legislation and bringing it to committee. It is my hope that when it comes back I can vote for it again.

There are, however, some questions that I think need to be addressed, not the least of which is the issue of what constitutes confidence and what parameters might exist that would not allow a government the opportunity to circumvent the legislation for its electoral advantage.

For example, we would want to avoid any situation whereby an election is called, or orchestrating an election, let us say hypothetically next spring or even this fall, perhaps after the introduction of a budget before it has been debated, or triggering an election before bad news arrives. For example, maybe the government has some indication of pending release of documents suggesting there might be some ill-conceived action that has taken place.

I think we need clarity as to what constitutes confidence and what parameters would exist in that regard. Could the softwood lumber vote today be an issue of confidence? Could the gun registry vote be an issue of confidence? I think these are some important constitutional issues that need to be addressed.

Our Constitution does not contain many provisions regarding elections. Section 50 tells us that the House of Commons shall continue for up to five years. Section 4 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms suggests that:

No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members.

In any event, I will support this bill in the initial stages, and I hope in the later stages, in the hope that the committee will spend as much time as possible in ensuring the bill makes sense and answers some of the questions proposed here and yesterday in debate in this House.

I must address another issue tied into public confidence, and occasionally public cynicism, about what happens here and how we conduct ourselves in Parliament.

Perhaps the real issue is not who calls an election or when, but how parliamentarians treat each other and the institutions of Parliament, such as, for example, question period. Question period is the time when most Canadians see us in the House of Commons. Debate clips do not usually get on TV, but question period does. During this 45 minute period, accusations are made, although the accusations seem to me to be more reasonable this year than last year, and reputations are sometimes ruined. We see false outrage and packaged answers. We wonder why people might think their elected representatives do not connect sometimes.

So is the issue of cynicism in politics solved by the introduction of fixed elections or by an overhaul of how we treat each other in this chamber? Why is it that colleagues from all sides can speak well to each other outside the chamber and enjoy a drink or dinner together, but when the cameras are on we cannot resist the temptation to replace debate with feigned outrage?

It is one thing to reform our election process, and I support that, but I hope all members would also reflect on issues related to our level of discourse in this chamber. I do not suggest that there are any angels among us. We all share that responsibility. We should all do better.

Nonetheless, I will support this bill, and I hope to support it when it comes back. We need more certainty about what constitutes confidence, about what determines when an election is called. The advantage of this bill for Canadians is that it would provide some certainty. It is important that we define certainty before we pass this bill. I will support it going to committee. I hope some changes are made. I hope very much to support it when it comes back.