:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
We're going to start the meeting now. We're waiting for one more witness representative to show up, but perhaps they will mingle in as we get started. We are going to get started because we have a number of witnesses to hear from and ask questions of, so time is of the essence.
I would like to advise members again that this meeting is being held in public.
Delivered to you this morning should have been a copy of a letter from Ms. Johnson as follow-up to our last meeting. There were some requests for information in writing. You have that before you. Hopefully that will help complete the questions of Ms. Johnson.
The purpose of the meeting today, of course, is consideration of Bill , an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, specifically with a focus on fixed election dates.
We have witnesses from the various parties. I'm assuming these are our new witnesses. We will proceed in a suggested order. I suggest that we proceed in the order of the Conservative Party first, the Bloc Québécois second, the New Democratic Party third, and the Green Party.
I'm open to instructions from the committee, but I have found that the meetings of five-minute rounds have worked well. However, today we have a number of witnesses, and with the committee's permission I would like to suggest we extend that to seven-minute rounds, at least for the first round, to allow for multiple answers.
Is it okay that we proceed with seven-minute rounds for the first round? I'm seeing nods. Is there any disagreement on a seven-minute round?
Ms. Jennings.
:
I'll open that question to the committee without comment from myself.
The question proposed by Ms. Jennings is that we set up a separate time for the committee to meet, whereby the Liberal Party of Canada would therefore have an opportunity to attend. They were not able to attend, apparently because of the super weekend that was held.
Are there any comments on that?
Mr. Preston first, then Mr. Hill, unless you want to decline.
:
I am seeing all nods on that, so that is how we will proceed. I will remind the committee as well that on Thursday we're meeting with other witnesses. Mr. Owen had brought up the issue that there may be a need to hear other witnesses, so perhaps we can even discuss that if they need to attend and if we need to have other witnesses, we could combine them at that meeting.
For now the decision is to request a written submission from the Liberal Party, and if we need to meet with them, we'll certainly do that. Let's proceed, then, if we can, to the main business of the day.
First of all, let me thank all of you for coming out this morning. It's a pleasure to see some of you again. The rest are new to me, but I thank you very much for coming out and taking your time to help fill the committee in on some of the questions we have with respect to fixed election dates.
We'll start off with a five-minute introduction, if that's what you need. If you don't, we'll just move around and then we'll open it for questions.
We'll start the round with Mr. Donison.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to you and members of the committee for giving the Conservative Party and the other political parties the opportunity to appear before you today to speak to Bill , which deals with fixed date elections.
I suggest, Mr. Chair, we call it fixed-date elections rather than fixed election dates. What we are fixing is the date, not the election.
Generally speaking, Mr. Chair, first of all--and then I want to speak a little bit specifically about the effects it will have on political parties from an operational point of view--this is an idea whose time has come. This has already been incorporated into other Westminster British parliamentary systems, and I think you've already had evidence before the committee to that effect. I would reference, of course, the province of Ontario, the province of British Columbia, the province of Newfoundland, and also commissions in both Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have recommended to their governments the same.
It is certainly the situation in the Scottish Parliament, in the Welsh Parliament, and I believe in three of the Australian state legislatures, all on the British Westminster model, and I'm not aware of any evidence that it's not working as it has been adopted by them.
Really what this idea does is a few things. I'll speak generally and then I'll speak specifically about parties. I think it combines incremental reform with the maintenance of the flexibility needed in our system of responsible government based on the British Westminster model. So it's an incremental, non-constitutional formal change.
What I've observed over the years, Mr. Chair, is when politicians are in opposition they often talk good talk about electoral and parliamentary reform but somehow when they get into government they don't seem to deliver. I think what you have before you is in this case we have a prime minister and a government who specifically campaigned on this issue and are now in government and prepared to implement it.
In many ways--and of course there has been lots of commentary, academic and otherwise, about this--of all the Westminster models, Canada probably has the most concentrated prime ministerial system, in the sense that the Prime Minister is institutionally, politically, and legally more powerful in Canada than in other Westminster systems. This is really a relinquishment, a voluntary relinquishment of prime ministerial discretionary power when it comes to calling an election.
Specifically in terms of political parties, I think what's important about this proposed reform is that it improves both fairness and predictability in our electoral system, fairness in the sense that the governing party of the day, particularly in a majority government situation--and members may want to talk about that--will no longer be at an advantage over the opposition parties in terms of the timing of the election, because everyone, including all citizens and voters, will know the election date. Therefore I think it creates a level playing field for all parties, both government and opposition.
I think the second and even more important reason, from my point view as an executive director of a political party, is it will allow a lot more predictability, predictability in terms of planning, whether it's organizing the party for election ramp-up, or volunteer and candidate recruitment. And I would particularly emphasize candidate recruitment. I notice, for instance, in a paper that I think has been presented to you by Professor Milner, that he suggested--and this is an idea I hadn't thought of, actually, Mr. Chair--that it will increase the chances of women and minorities to have much better advance notice in terms of planning their lives so that they can participate as candidates in the political process. I hadn't actually thought about that. I think it's something that needs to be considered as well, and I think commends the bill even further.
So really what we have, Mr. Chair, is a situation where we're going to replace the current situation where the best interests of the current governing party in terms of the timing of the election will be replaced with what is in the best interest of the country and of citizens.
I would just like to finish off, and then I'll of course be open to questions. I want to quote a Canadian politician, an eminent Canadian politician, on this very subject. I have his text and I can certainly table the document. He said as follows:
Elections are democratic events that belong to all of us. They do not belong to the party in power, to manipulate for its own partisan advantage. Elections do not belong to premiers, to use as they see fit for their own political agenda. Elections belong to all of us, as citizens, and we have a right to know when they will be held, so that we can plan effectively and participate fully. Mr. Speaker, elections belong to all political parties, so that all of us are on an equal footing and can compete for office fairly.
I'm quoting from the statement in the Ontario legislature of the Honourable Dalton McGuinty, the Liberal Premier of Ontario, when he introduced the bill creating fixed election dates in the province of Ontario.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the Bloc Québécois, we are in favour of the principle that underlies this legislation, but we are not fooled by it. The Prime Minister's prerogative remains, and nothing in this bill assures us that the fixed date will be respected, particularly where a minority government is concerned.
The other aspect we feel is important is the date proposed in the Bill. Quebec's specificity expresses itself in a variety of ways, and it can be difficult for people from outside Quebec to really understand all that this implies. For more than 30 years now, regulations in Quebec have meant that moving day for many people occurs within a specific period, which is July 1st. On July 1st, 250,000 households move, representing, overall, some 575,000 voters, or approximately 10% of the Quebec electorate.
Previously, Mr. Kingsley demonstrated that it would be impossible for him to capture all the data, particularly from Quebec, and associated with people moving, and postpone the filing of voters lists from October 15 to November 15, in order to incorporate these changes. He apparently said that he would do everything he could to ensure that the voters lists would be as consistent as possible with reality. If he now says it's impossible for him to file voters lists that reflect changes that have occurred in Quebec by October 15, it is even less possible for him to do that in September.
Surely no parliamentarian would want to jeopardize the voting rights of the entire population of Newfoundland or of everyone living on Prince Edward Island even though their population, all told, is less than the number of voters who move in Quebec -- the equivalent of about seven ridings. For example, the entire City of Quebec or the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Côte-Nord or part of the Gaspé regions could see their right to vote jeopardized.
Consequently, as far as we are concerned, the date selected is a real issue the Committee will have to look at. We believe the Committee should be looking at other options as regards an appropriate date.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much for the invitation to come and speak to you about from the perspective of the NDP.
We have circulated a brief and everybody should have a copy of it. It goes through some of the reasons we support the bill, introduces a caution, and mentions some of the further steps that we think need to be taken.
We support the bill because we believe that setting fixed dates will strengthen democracy in Canada and will help to build confidence in a fair and transparent electoral system, something that I think is definitely needed in our current climate.
As a matter of fact, the idea of these fixed dates was part of a seven-point ethics plan that was put forward by our leader, Jack Layton, and the Honourable Ed Broadbent prior to the last election. It included a proposal for fixed election dates and some other very important initiatives that were designed to revitalize our democracy, make government accountable to Canadians, and restore confidence in our electoral system.
The reason we have for supporting fixed election dates is that we believe it will level the playing field for the political parties. The timing of the election has been a powerful tool for governing parties in our system. The flexibility that they have to call an election when they're ready and in the best possible position provides an advantage for the governing party that we think is unfair and undermines democracy and transparency. We think setting the date at predictable intervals, rather than when pollsters think the timing is right, will be a great improvement.
We also believe it offers greater predictability for Canadians, for Elections Canada, which currently has to be prepared at all times, for the government, and for political parties. We think Parliament can then focus on governing and on making Parliament work for people. It also means that Elections Canada doesn't have to spend our tax dollars to be in a constant state of election readiness.
We also support the legislation because we think it will help to restore confidence in the fairness of our electoral system. It's hard to say how many, but some Canadians have definitely lost faith in our democracy. We think this legislation will help to restore fairness and, very importantly, the perception of fairness.
We think Canadians will be more likely to vote and to participate in the political process if the system is fair and accountable. Others have spoken about the increase in the diversity of the voters, particularly appealing to women and young people.
Of course, we hope it will also result in increasing voter participation rates. We think that if Canadians know in advance when the election day is, they'll know how important it is and what the issues are. It will allow us to better promote the issues in the election, make sure voters are registered, and make sure Canadians exercise their right to vote.
There is a caution that we think is important. With an election looming, the government party may have an advantage other than that of fixing the election date, and that is, using government resources to promote the party to the electorate through advertising, announcements, and campaign-like tours. We think it is a caution that we need to keep a close eye on.
We are recommending that the legislation be passed in the context of further reforms that are very important in revitalizing our democracy: things like taking power out of the hands of lobbyists and making sure decisions are made in the open; having appointments that are based on merit rather than political connections; reforming the appointment of Supreme Court judges, with an independent committee to provide criteria, examination, and debate; ending abuses in the appointment of other public officials; improving our freedom of information legislation; passing a whistle-blower act that applies to the private and public sectors; passing a new act to make MPs accountable when they switch parties so that electors can decide whether or not they approve of that decision; passing a leadership accountability act so that we can look at party leadership contests; and ensuring some form of proportional representation.
I want to assure the witnesses that some of the conversations taking place around the table are as a result of the interesting points that are being made, but I would request that my colleagues keep that to a minimum.
Ms. McGrath, I would also request that the witnesses try to stay focused. There are so many interesting things we could talk about, but I want to leave those things for a future date. We want to stay focused on the issue of fixed dates for the election.
I will let you continue, but if you could stay focused on this issue, it would be very helpful.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for inviting the Green Party to offer our views today on . I'll take just a few minutes to summarize our views.
We do not oppose the bill; however, we do not believe there is any particular benefit to be gained from moving to fixed election dates. While there are many possible pros and cons, none of the alleged benefits seem so strong as to make it a priority to move forward with this amendment.
If the goal of is to reinvigorate democracy in Canada by making elections more fair, by increasing voter turnout, by increasing accountability, or by some other argument in favour of fixed election dates, we do not agree that any of these will be the inevitable result.
Because Canadian parliamentary tradition requires that a government have the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons, we do not see how a fixed election date is desirable, or even necessarily possible. As a political party that must plan for elections, it might seem at first glance that a fixed date would make our lives simpler and our preparations more predictable. But given that a government might still fall at any time, we would still need to be on a near constant state of readiness--as would Elections Canada, for that matter.
While the Green Party believes wholeheartedly that many aspects of our electoral system need improvement, moving to fixed election dates is not on our list of priorities. Rather, we believe all of the time and energy being devoted to this bill could and should be devoted to moving towards a more proportional form of representation.
We do wish to see a higher voter turnout; increased citizen engagement; greater government transparency and accountability; higher involvement of youth, new Canadians, and marginalized Canadians; and reduced cynicism about politics in general. We believe these are all necessary and laudable goals that must be addressed by the government. However, we do not see how a fixed election date will necessarily help.
To reiterate our views, we are not against fixed election dates, but we do not see this bill as the kind of significant electoral reform that Canada needs. We hope it would be just the start of electoral reform.
Thank you.
Colleagues, we're going to move to our first round of questioning. I'll remind you to try your best to keep your questions short; maybe the answers will be as succinct. We have a lot of material and a lot of witnesses. You can ask an individual witness for a comment, but by all means, ask for brief comments from all the witnesses. It's whatever you choose.
To start our first round, seven minutes please, Mr. Owen.
Welcome, witnesses, and thank you for your presentations. My question is very brief, and it's really to all of you.
Ms. McGrath mentioned the concern, I think quite appropriately, about a government not using government public advertising. The concern, which we should all properly have, is that the government not misuse its power of public policy announcements and advertising, confusing voters who might otherwise think that what is political advertising is really government advertising.
I think that's an appropriate caution, but as officials, as you all are, of national political parties, I'd be very interested to know your specific experience, concern, or otherwise with the issue that's raised by some, that where you have a fixed date, it can lead to prolonged election campaigning--the year before, say--and constrain a government's ability to get its business done. So it can impact policy, potentially, and have a financial drain impact, or be a financial advantage.
Those are some concerns we've heard. We'd welcome and value your views on whether those are realistic problems with regard to fixed election dates--or flexible fixed election dates, as this is--or whether, if there are concerns at all, there are other ways to overcome those concerns.
Thank you.
I believe those are concerns that you raised. There is, of course, the possibility that the moment we get anywhere close to that date we'll be in campaign mode for a very long period. We do see that in the American model. We probably see it in other countries too, but we're less aware of it. That is certainly a concern.
Another concern might be that just as students might be inclined to constantly be in preparation for exams, we might find governments in that final year so focused on the election that to some degree the business of the House and bigger issues that might be out there would be distorted.
:
I want to thank the witnesses for being with us today.
Mr. Gardner, I have a question for you. You're absolutely right with respect to the number of people moving on July 1st. However, when a member of your party questioned Mr. Kingsley on that very issue, he replied that there was no problem and that they would probably be emphasizing the fact that Canadian citizens can register on voting day, in any case. At the same time, that leads to a whole host of problems, in the sense that they are not on the correct lists, and as a result they don't necessarily receive their mail, and so on.
The second problem that I see, as regards the date, is the conflict that might arise between federal and municipal elections held in Quebec, despite what is asserted in a background paper issued by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform. Indeed, that document states that the third Monday in October was selected because it is the least likely to conflict with fixed date provincial elections, statutory holidays, religious holidays, and municipal elections. They probably forgot to consider the situation in Quebec.
So, in 30 seconds, could you give us an overview of the impact -- something I know quite a bit about -- of overlapping dates, particularly from the organizational standpoint.
I think Monsieur Gardner is raising a good point. We should not assume that it's a mutual thing, not the same groups of people. Not every sector of the population is likely to move as frequently as other sectors. We can expect, for example, that young people are likely to move more frequently than people who are senior citizens. As a result, certain groups are more likely to be left off the list than other groups, and that's a valid concern. Trying to capture that is very important.
I'm not sure I have an actual preferred date.
[Translation]
Mr. Gardner, is there a date that your party prefers?
:
We have to look at the various options, because there is the matter of municipal elections, but also because the weekend that precedes the third Monday in October is Thanksgiving weekend, which occurs every year. That could pose a problem in terms of voter turnout. Also, in Quebec, there are quite a lot of school holidays in both the universities and CEGEPs around that time of the year, which affects people who are eligible to vote.
The date that we could suggest, and which does not conflict with provincial civic or other holidays, would be the first Monday in May. There is one time between now and the year 2020 that the previous weekend will be Easter weekend, and that is in the year 2011. That would be the only time that advance polls would take place during a holiday period. Otherwise, there is the matter of the date, but we could also raise quite a number of other things that are affected if the third Monday in October is selected.
The first Monday in May would not conflict with anything. Furthermore, students are still in educational institutions. We always talk about encouraging young people to vote, but in that case, they would still be in their institutions, in the place where they are probably on the voters list.
The motivating principle behind the choice of the third Monday in October was primarily, as I understand it, an effort to avoid any conflicts with other electoral dates, and also an effort to pick something that did not wind up conflicting with any religious holidays. Some of those are moveable feasts and there is a way of adjusting. A third thing was trying to do it at a time that doesn't hit when people are preoccupied with some other very important activity.
As we search for these, I don't think any date is perfect. If you do write back to us with further thoughts, I would appreciate it if you could indicate, in principle, what the most important considerations are. You can point out specific dates but indicate the principled reasons behind them. Mr. Gardner has actually been very clear in saying he has a principled reason based on people being unable to get onto the electoral rolls. In the end, as Parliament searches for the date that gets put into the law, if it gets changed from the one that's been suggested by the government, it has to have some guidance on what the principles are under which we are operating and what the hierarchy of one principle or one consideration over another might be in the eyes, ultimately, of the people who are trying to administer these elections, the various parties.
:
I think traditionally, historically, for a lot of Canadians that is not regarded as an appropriate day for that kind of public political activity, so I wouldn't be favourably disposed to a Sunday date.
I think that since Sir John A's day, or Laurier's day anyway, the tradition has been Monday, or Tuesday if the Monday's a holiday. I think that's what Canadians are used to, and I don't see any reason to change that.
As to whether it would change turnout, it might actually diminish turnout. There are a lot of Canadians who just simply wouldn't vote on that particular day.
:
You talked about the fact that school and municipal elections occur on a Sunday in Quebec. Of course, we're talking about different levels of government. The voter turnout for school elections is between 10 and 15%. At the municipal level, it's about 40 or 50%, at most. Those are relatively low turnout rates -- at least lower than voter turnout for a federal election or an election held in Quebec since, for many years, the voter turnout was about 80% when the election was held on a Monday. That rate has dropped in recent elections.
I don't think one can make a direct connection between voter turnout and choosing to hold an election on a Sunday or a Monday. Of course, from an organizational standpoint, people's availability may, at first glance, seem greater on a Sunday, but there is no reason to believe that the voter turnout rate would be higher if the election were held on a Sunday.
However, I would just like to seize this opportunity to digress for one moment. Quebec's motto is Je me souviens. And yet when you look at Canadian registries of electors since Confederation, you see that although governments were free to choose any voting day, they chose dates that occurred in all the seasons: fall, spring, summer and winter.
One of the reasons why a government might prefer having an election in the month of October may have to do with the process for getting a budget passed. Indeed, almost 40% of the elections held since Confederation were held during the budget process. So, even though governments were free to choose the date, they chose a date inside the budget process. I don't think that could be an argument in support of the idea of holding an election in the fall.
:
I'd like to thank all the guests who presented today. It's helpful to get the perspective of those who are from the party side of the equation. You all bring a different perspective.
We're going to have people who have examined the whole constitutionality question and concerns about convention, etc., so I'm going to save that for another day and not bring it up, unless you feel the need to. From the New Democratic Party perspective, we support this bill because we believe it will result in a more level playing field. It was something we proposed before the last election. However, there's a caveat. The government has the public purse, and the advantages therein. There are concerns about advertising and doling out the dough at election time.
I would like to get your perspective on bringing in changes to make sure that governments aren't allowed—and we could talk about dates—to use government advertising right before an election. We would need amendments or parallel legislation brought in for this. That's number one.
Number two: October is not a bad date, since the budget has already taken place. The estimates might be out, but the government wouldn't have the opportunity to dole out the money. There should be some curtailment. Just before an election, the announcements come out and the money starts flying around all over the country. I'd like your take on this.
I'll start with that, and then I have some other questions. For now, though, I`d just like your take on curtailment of funding around advertising and government announcements, except in emergencies.
:
My friend here has just given me a clear indication that Jean Charest is going to be defeated in Quebec. Some $3 billion have been spent since the month of June.
As you were saying earlier, I think that if we want to have some control over a government's integrity and morality as regards the use of public funds in a pre-election period, we will have to establish an actual complaint process. Also, an independent authority will be required, in order to determine whether the actions of the Government are inconsistent with the Elections Act and what is authorized in the way of election spending.
And the fact is that we are currently in a pre-election period of sorts. Right now, there is absolutely nothing. The legislation before you will in no way change the current reality. I think it's a little futile to think that we will be in a position to implement effective control mechanisms.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your presentations.
I simply want to say that as a Quebecker, I have the same concerns as you do, Mr. Gardner, with respect to the date set out in the Bill as the fixed election date.
For a number of years in a row, I myself had to move on July 1. My view is that the proposed date is really problematic for Quebeckers.
My question is mainly for Ms. McGrath, and possibly Mr. Chernushenko as well.
First of all, Ms. McGrath, you stated that having fixed election dates would encourage Canadians to exercise their right to vote, which would lead to higher voter turnout rates. I'd like you to tell us -- I looked, but was unable to find any -- what studies you have that show a positive correlation between fixed election dates and the voter turnout rate?
I do know of studies showing that there are jurisdictions where they have fixed dates, but they also have penalties and sanctions that apply to citizens who do not exercise their right to vote. However, I have seen no studies where the decision to vote is one the citizen is truly free to make, and where the turnout is much higher than in those jurisdictions where there are no fixed election dates. So, I would be very interested in having that information.
My second question is addressed to Mr. Donison. How will Bill C-16 limit the Prime Minister's power to go to the Governor General's residence to ask that an election be called at a time other than the fixed date? I read the Bill very carefully and I saw no such restriction there. Indeed, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was boasting about the fact that Bill C-16 in no way limits the Governor General's discretionary power to call an election at any time before the fixed date.
Can you tell me where you see such a restriction, since you mentioned that we now have a Prime Minister and a party that would be ready, as you said, to
[English]
“walk the walk and talk the talk”. Where is it in Bill ?
:
I can't cite any particular studies that talk about the increase in participation rates as a result of a fixed election date, although I'm assuming there is research done for this committee that could probably put forward some of that research.
I think, from an intuitive point of view, that there is in the population a general unease or lack of faith in the democratic system. That's not necessarily going to be fixed by something like this; as I said before, that's in the context of a larger democratic reform package. But I believe that knowing when the election is, having the ability to advertise widely, having the issues out there, will encourage more people to participate actively in the electoral process.
I'm assuming that the research capacity of this committee would be able to put forward some of the relevant studies. As a matter of fact, I think I read some of that in the background for your committee.
:
One minute on this question, Mr. Chair? I'll try.
Mr. Chair, Madam Jennings is absolutely right when she says that legally nothing in Bill changes the current legal situation or the conventions of the Constitution. The reason it cannot is because the only way that can be affected is a constitutional amendment under section 41, which would require unanimous agreement, because it would affect the office of the crown.
However, we don't have to deal with theory. We can deal with practice. Again, I would cite all of the jurisdictions in the Westminster model that have adopted the fixed-date election. None of them has restricted the old discretionary powers of the crown, but in all cases they're working. And I gave a concrete example, Mr. Chair. If Mr. McGuinty, the premier of this province, decided to go to the Lieutenant Governor, he'd have to have an awfully good reason to dissolve now.
What fixed date elections do is create the expectation in the political classes and in the citizenry that this is the new norm, the new standard. So a prime minister or a first minister who decides to use his discretionary political power and rely on the crown's legal discretionary power would be treading on very difficult political ground. The reality is that jurisdictions have adopted it, and almost, I would dare to say, a convention of the Constitution has evolved, in which those first ministers simply do not...unless it's a national crisis or the government loses clear confidence, and that's very rare in a majority situation.
Theoretically, you're right, Madam Jennings, but in practical reality this will set the new standard. Certainly we've witnessed that in B.C. and Ontario.
:
Mr. Donison, I'd like to come back to something you said earlier and which sounds a lot like the answer I got from the Government House Leader.
The Prime Minister, even if he had a majority government, would retain the right or privilege, to a certain extent, of being able to go and see the Governor General and ask him or her to dissolve the Government for a valid reason.
Do you agree with me that what constitutes a good or major reason is totally subjective? It is certainly not objective information. In law, what you see as a good reason may not be what I consider a good reason; it's subjective.
Do you remember the pretext Jean Chrétien used to call an election in 2000, when he had just been re-elected in 1997? I remember it as if it happened yesterday. He was at Rideau Hall. After visiting the Governor General, reporters asked him why, when it had been less than four years since the last election, he had decided to call another. He answered that he needed a mandate from the people of Canada in order to spend the budget surpluses as he was intending to do.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: That was a good reason.
Hon. Marlene Jennings: It was an excellent reason.
As long as we have a fiscal imbalance, the federal Government will rack up budget surpluses while the provinces are in dire straits, and that won't change as long as they are part of that system.
Do you realize that the answer you gave earlier and the one I got last week from the Government House Leader was a subjective one: you say it will have to be for a good reason. But who will be able to decide what a good reason is? Of course, if the electorate feels it's a futile or a partisan reason, or that it's just an attempt to pull a fast one on the Opposition, it can always sanction the Government.
I'd be interested in hearing your comments.
:
Mr. Chair, I think I can only refer to what I said before. We cannot alter the legal situation. You're right, it is a bit subjective, but unless there's a national crisis or in the case of a majority government, for some reason--which is rare in our system, or almost impossible--the government loses the confidence of the House, I think we have to maintain the flexibility of the responsible government model.
I think the reality is that a prime minister.... You cite the example of 2000, and I would also cite the same thing that happened in the 1997 election with a federal majority Liberal government; and the same thing happened in 2004. Those were all premature elections, and I would submit to you that in the case of Mr. Chrétien in 1997--I'll try not to be partisan here, Mr. Guimond--and Mr. Chrétien in 2000 and Mr. Martin in 2004, those elections were all premature. They were all called clearly, I think--and there are books written on this--to catch the new opposition leading party with a new leader, flat-footed.
I would suggest to you that once this becomes law, a prime minister at his peril will attempt to do what Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin did in 1997, 2000, and 2004.
There are a couple of other questions that are outstanding with regard to this. I've been using the language “flexible fix”, because I think it's important for the citizenry to understand that this is a minority Parliament and we'd still have the opportunity for Parliament to fall and of course to go into an election.
In terms of participation, when we asked the folks in B.C. and the chief electoral officer there about their experience in encouraging—with reference, Mr. Donison, to Mr. Milner's paper—more women and visible minorities and aboriginal peoples to participate in the democratic process, she wasn't able to cite anything. I would hope when we look at this—it's a very important area, for us at least in the New Democratic Party, and I'm sure for everyone—that in and of itself, having this law is not enough. A couple of other things need to be done.
We've talked about enumeration. We need to put resources and any savings we can find—particularly if there are savings, and it's been mentioned that in B.C. there are some, because you are able to rent offices and hire people ahead of time and make some savings there—into an enumeration process that is truly democratic. We have censuses, we have tax time, we have many ways of gathering data, but we really need to put the pressure on an enumeration process that allows people not just to know when the date is, but be able to participate. I'll just mention that and see whether it's an issue among folks.
The other thing is, how do we get more women, more visible minorities, and more aboriginal people to both participate—and we don't have the data on that—and to stand as candidates, as was mentioned? We've done some things in our party, and I'm glad to say we have within our caucus a higher percentage of women in the House than any other party.
What are some of your thoughts about this? I'll just open it up to the panel.
:
I do not believe that Bill C-16 will really contribute to greater equity in terms of the candidates and the people who get elected. I think that there will have to be some profound changes within society before we will see greater equity, and I don't think Bill C-16 will in any way change the current, unfortunate reality.
There is another type of legislation, in parliamentary democracies across the planet, that sets a specific timeframe. For example, it states that an election must be held within a two-month period. If you compare voter turnout rates in those parliamentary democracies that have fixed dates with others that don't have them, you will see that there isn't much variation. Certainly, there are cultural traits associated with voter patterns, but as a general rule, there is not much variation in terms of turnout rates. Consequently, I don't think that the fact of having a fixed date or an approximate date will change the behaviour of the electorate in terms of their voting patterns.
Given the—very few, I would say—tangible benefits of going down this road, when we start talking about flexible fixed election dates I'm left with the conclusion that this is much ado about nothing. If we want to keep certain aspects of our current system that allow flexibility, require responsible government, require the confidence of the House, we are left with a fixed election date that isn't fixed. This leads to the conclusion that there are much more important, more fundamental things that a government can be doing to address the democratic deficit than moving to fixed election dates.
So it comes back to our general point here today from the Green Party, which is that while we see no particular reason to oppose it, we also don't see why we should invest all these resources in moving ahead with it when there are others, such as proportional representation, such as looking at how within each party we can be getting more candidates from visible or non-visible minorities, more gender balance, etc..... I would rather see the effort go into that.
Mr. Donison, I'm slightly confused, because you say that in those jurisdictions where you have flexible fixed elections, because the prerogative still exists, it has created a new paradigm. My understanding is that B.C. has only just gone to fixed election dates. Ontario is only now going to fixed election dates. Other provinces have only said they will go to fixed election dates. In Australia, these two state legislatures you're talking about have only recently gone to fixed election dates. So the affirmations you're making are based on very, very recent.... We're talking about systems where they have one flexible-fixed or possibly two flexible-fixed. We're not talking about systems where those flexible fixed election dates in parliamentary democracies have existed for 50 or 60 years.
If you have examples where flexible fixed systems have existed for a longer period, I wish you would bring it forward. Otherwise, this is really intuitive or anecdotal at this point. And I don't believe there is sufficient clear and convincing evidence to make the kinds of affirmations and conclusions you're making.
:
I'm assuming there's no question there for the panel either.
I'm going to thank the witnesses now, because it looks like we're done with our questioning. I appreciate very much all the witnesses coming out again today. We do often give brief notice, but we appreciate your preparedness in turning out today.
I will dismiss the panel, and I thank you again on behalf of the committee.
As the panellists gather their papers, the meeting remains in public.
I just want to remind members that the next meeting is on Thursday, when we will have a panel of experts. Professor Henry Milner will be appearing via video conference from Sweden; Professor Andrew Heard will be appearing via video conference from Victoria; and Professor Louis Massicotte will actually be here in person, in Ottawa. That's just a reminder, and the room will be 253-D. You will get reminders from the clerk.
Are there any further questions or pieces of business? Seeing none, I declare the meeting adjourned.